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.

Being in the early months of my new job having come through a recent recruitment process, I almost religiously searched for advice on how to write the perfect CV.

There’s a lot of information online, and if you’re anything like me, you’ll divulge the whole mass and end up biting off more than you can chew, becoming more confused than when you started. But here is what I learned.

First of all, no matter how much advice you try to follow, the key point to remember is that your CV is your CV. Nothing’s more personal than how you spend your 40 hours per week, so make sure you sell yourself, not entirely copy a generic layout and writing style. Don’t get me wrong, you need to cover all bases, but your personal qualities and skills need to stand out in a way that is unique for you to get the job.

For sales jobs, recruiters are looking for candidates who are motivated by financial targets, are resilient against setbacks and show initiative when faced with complicated challenges.

If you already have a sales background, then you’re already one step up from the wide-eyed graduates. Sales experience opens doors to management roles, so beef up your CV with examples of your experience in sales. There are less of these positions available thanks to the recession, but it doesn’t mean they’re non-existent. You’ve just got to want it more and prove it in your CV.

Having good communication skills will be your saviour through your cold calls, and listening is just as important.

Putting across a genuine personality helps you connect with a client, and in turn they’ll respect your expertise and honesty. If you’re able to make a connection with your potential manager at your interview, they’ll know that this will be transferable when dealing with clientele.

But how can you put this across in a CV? Here are a few basic tips that will help you go far in the recruitment process:

A list of achievements where you've interacted with a variety of people is clear evidence to the employer that you are comfortable working with others. These activities could include work experience, voluntary work, or gap years. Experience in hospitality and retail are also great examples of proving to the employer that you can work under pressure as well as sustain interaction and customer service.

Thinking laterally and being flexible with your initiative is key to solving challenges at work. Thinking on your feet will save a lot of time, as we all know: time = money!

In terms of CV layout, it depends on your personality and the specific job application, but basic content is similar throughout:

• Name, contact details, website
• Language qualifications, sporting achievements, academic awards
• Education, include educational experiences that contribute to your personal skills ie public speaking, group presentations

A highly-skilled workforce is a must in today’s competitive business environment. But as many companies slash their budgets in the relentless pursuit of efficiencies, is employee training becoming yet another victim of austerity?

Companies that fail to invest in talent will undoubtedly learn the hard way that this is a short cut to failure. Chris Ross presents a crash course in the current market for training and development.

There are mixed views on whether companies’ training and development activities are taking a hit in the current global economy. Recent mid-year analysis in the US revealed that global spend on training this year has been around 7–9% higher than in 2010. But Training 2011, a study by UK market intelligence company Key Note, presents a different trend.

The report estimates that spending on off-the-job training by UK private and public sector employees fell by 3.2% in the year to April 2010 – and that spending on external trainers dropped by around 17% in the same period. The study reports that training investment most likely dropped further by around 2.5% up to April 2011, but forecasts a slight recovery of 1.5% by April 2012. These are worrying times.

Companies are desperately seeking to increase their capabilities as the markets in which they operate are changing; but to drive real growth, continued investment in talent is essential. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) says that whilst organisations will undoubtedly expect people to do more with less, they should not expect employees “to want to do more with less learning and talent development.”

Learning and Talent Development 2011, the CIPD’s annual survey report, revealed that resources and budgets for learning and development had decreased in two-fifths of organisations in the past year, whilst a third of companies had reduced their headcount.

The study showed that although most businesses have a training budget, in most cases these have not only suffered cutbacks, but are also expected to cover a broad range of activities and costs. Unsurprisingly, the majority of budgets cover items such as external courses and conferences (93%), hiring external consultants and trainers (83%) and books/training manuals (81%).

But for two-fifths of the organisations surveyed, the training budget is also expected to cover fixed costs and salaries for in-house trainers. Clearly, the battle to upskill the workforce is being played out in the most testing of circumstances.

 

The employment market

The employment market is certainly creating challenges for employers and candidates alike. Unemployment is rising as organisations continue to reduce their workforces – but those companies that are hiring are finding that many job applicants are not sufficiently skilled and are therefore unsuitable for employment.

Conversely, in a stagnant job market, those who are in employment appear reluctant to move. Talented individuals are staying put. But is enough being done to nurture and develop them? Or are they too likely to stagnate as opportunities fail to emerge?

Likewise, less talented but generally reliable employees –the ‘safe pairs of hands’ that populate every organisation – are in many industries failing to receive adequate skills development, leading to an uncomfortable paradox: they are safe in their roles, but as their markets evolve they are not ‘fit for purpose’ to perform them.

In difficult times, the need for increased investment in human capital is significant. Training and talent development is a major priority for businesses large and small. In a market characterised by growing shareholder expectations and shrinking operational budgets, what are the options for training and developing the workforce?

Learning and Talent Development 2011 says that most companies are continuing the 2010 policy of “switching to more cost-effective development practices”. This has seen organisations reduce their use of external training service providers and instead increase in-house development programmes, internal knowledge-sharing events and coaching by line managers. In addition, the use of e-learning solutions continues to grow.

Technology-led learning tools are becoming increasingly popular across Europe. Training today, training tomorrow, a present-day analysis of learning trends across Europe by Cegos Group, says that uptake of solutions such as ‘serious games’, mobile learning and online learning has grown considerably. This, it says, is driven by an emerging younger demographic in the workplace, and widespread corporate objectives to reduce costs yet maintain productivity.

Learning solutions that are delivered in a medium that is more familiar to this emerging user-group, and that mirror the new “social, global and mobile environment”, are not only easier to integrate into employees’ daily activities, but are also considered more engaging and effective. According to Cegos Group’s 2011 survey, half of those trained in Europe have used informal learning tools such as videoconferencing, wikis, blogs, forums and podcasts.

 

Old school still rules

So the rise of e-based learning solutions is tipped to continue. But, despite rhetoric to the contrary, not at the expense of traditional learning tools. Face-to-face training remains popular – external courses, seminars and conferences continue to play a valuable educational role.

In heavily knowledge-based and technical industries such as life sciences, traditional methodologies remain both popular and effective. In medical markets, despite the obvious growth of e-learning tools, tried-and-tested lecture-style learning still appears to be the preferred option, with many participants choosing it as their favoured route for CPD.

The CIPD study shows that external conferences and events are rated as being among the most effective learning methods for leaders, potential leaders and middle management. Despite this, more than a third of companies (34%) have reduced their use of external events in the past year.

In other areas, classroom-style lectures are being replaced by individual one-to-one sessions that enable more individualised, targeted training. There has been significant growth in activities such as coaching and mentoring, which are being recognised as important tools to encourage individual accountability and nurture talent.

According to the CIPD survey, coaching takes place in more than four-fifths (86%) of companies polled, with its main objectives being to support performance management, prepare people for leadership roles and assist learning and development.

A third of companies employ coaches, while two-fifths hand responsibility for it to line managers. Only one-fifth use external consultants for coaching. Group training – such as team coaching sessions and collaborative workshops – is evolving to become more interactive, customised and flexible – giving facilitators the opportunity to adapt training quickly, based on employee feedback and needs.

 

The need for speed

Speed is emerging as a key consideration in companies’ training and development strategies. Businesses are becoming more impatient. They want their employees to develop quicker and to become more proficient and productive faster than ever before. Such corporate impatience is, in fact, often mirrored by learners themselves. Employees want the fast track to success and, where it exists, will choose the crash course over longer-term learning.

As a result, multimedia and web-based training tools have seen a real surge in uptake. The benefits are clear, but the approach is not without its challenges. The dropout rate in self-monitored online training is apparently high, with too many participants failing to complete courses.

Developers need to work hard to ensure that online courses are engaging and exploit the opportunities for interactivity and connectivity that the medium provides. Critics claim that too many courses appear little more than traditional training manuals that have been uploaded to an online format.

Clearly, as the global business environment continues to evolve in challenging times, training models and methodologies are having to adapt to meet changing needs. The emergence of collaborative, interactive and dynamic learning tools, enabled by rapid advances in technology, have opened up new opportunities for training and development – but it only really completes the circle of learning solutions available to the market.

Training is, after all, demand-driven and should be designed to meet the varying, and often individual, needs and tastes of its end users. As such, training managers should continue to consider the full suite of learning tools open to them – in dialogue with learners and their line managers, to find the most effective solutions to meet organisations’ and individuals’ objectives.

Undoubtedly, however, the biggest demand from a business perspective is to nurture a skilled, talented and engaged workforce. To do this, companies must continue to invest in training and development, rather than chip away at training budgets for short-term efficiency gains.

The potential long-term impact of that approach is a disengaged, unmotivated and unproductive workforce that is not fit for purpose. And that really would be learning the hard way.

Data in this article have been sourced from Learning and Talent Development 2011, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s annual survey report. This is available for download from the CIPD website. Training today, training tomorrow, an analysis of learning trends across Europe and global comparisons, is available for download from the Cegos website.

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

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

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

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

So why are leaders suddenly feeling self-conscious?

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

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

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

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

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.

Former Pfizer employees have established a research networking firm to be based at their previous workplace in Sandwich, Kent (pictured).

Seven ex-Pfizer staff members will be part of The Research Network, “a bit like a dating agency for scientists”, as described by its CEO, Andrew McElroy.

He explained that the company would help biotech and pharmaceutical companies connect with partners for outsourcing research productivity.

“We are a talented team of experienced drug discovery scientists who have a broad knowledge of the scientific services market place, what things cost, how long projects will take and who provides the best service.”

Pfizer put the site up for sale in June, with the Government naming the Discovery Park as an Enterprise Zone.

Kent County Council has previously warned that financial recovery in the area could take up to a decade, but MPs have since begun campaigning for investment interest in the site.

Significant interest has been shown in the site, hoping to attract around 190 businesses, which will in turn create around 2,500 new jobs, replacing the 2,400 lost when Pfizer decided to close the plant in February.

The drug giant was previously criticised for its lack of support to those who were made redundant, and only retained 350 employees at the plant until it vacates the premises by the end of 2012.

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…

It would seem that there’s a job perfectly suited to match the personality of each of us. However, despite various tests and metrics introduced to discover what role best suits certain individuals, Ian McGarry reveals it’s not quite that simple.

The words ‘know thy self’ were reported to have been inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. Attributed to the Greek philosopher Thales, this proclamation urged the ancient to develop a greater level of self reflection and insight. Despite our obvious similarities as humans we are temperamentally very dissimilar from each other.

Understanding why we are so different has, over the centuries, vexed the minds of philosophers, doctors and psychologists alike. One of the earliest attempts to account for behavioural differences dates back over two thousand years. Galen, a Roman physician, distinguished four temperaments; melancholic (sombre, unhappy), choleric (irritable and easily angered), phlegmatic (apathetic, sluggish) and sanguine (cheerful, optimistic) which he thought, incorrectly, provided an insight into how individuals should be treated medically. His theories still survive in various forms to this day, though thankfully not so much in medicine!

The temperamental differences that obsessed Galen are the basis of what we have come to term our ‘personalities’. Over time, there have been numerous attempts to theorise, define and measure these qualities. It is only in the last hundred years or so that we have developed the psychological and statistical tools to move beyond speculation and metaphysics into more scientifically quantifiable concepts.

What is personality?

Personality refers to those enduring characteristics and traits that enable a person to be recognised as a distinct individual. Although not the whole picture, psychologists generally agree that personality plays an important role in how people behave. Many would urge caution however in assuming that personality underscores all behaviour, and this is especially true concerning our ability to perform and achieve success.

Though we may broadly agree what personality means there are still plenty of differing approaches taken to both quantifying and measuring its specific facets. A cursory glance at all of the models available to psychologists and organisations reveals a plethora of different personality tests all claiming to highlight the most revealing components of who we are.

More often, psychologists and researchers rely on a five-factor model developed by Costa and McCrae. Often referred to as ‘the big five’, this is available as an assessment tool (NEO-PI-R). This evidence-based model maintains that all the various structures of personality can be represented across the following five dimensions:

In short, your personality can be successfully represented as a measure of the combination of, and the level at, which you score against each dimension. But, whilst interesting, does it actually tell us anything about our potential for success in life?

Personality at work

It may be easy to accept that certain personality types may fair better at jobs more than others. We even tend to stereotype some professions by personality attributes, for example, introverted accountants or extroverted sales people. Understanding personality in order to predict behaviour is an attractive idea for those interested in personality research. As you may imagine, ascertaining someone’s potential performance in a job is an extremely attractive proposition for employers who want to match the best people to their vacancies, or promote those they believe have the greatest potential for success.

There are numerous personality profile tools on the market and many of us will have some experience of these in our working lives. It would be rare to meet someone in the pharmaceutical industry for example who hadn’t undertaken a personality test at an assessment centre, as part of a job application, or a personal development program. The associated costs of employing the right people for a job can be potentially massive leading some firms to try a variety of measures, some unfounded – such as handwriting analysis – to sort the ‘wheat’ from the ‘cha­ ’.

If used wisely, robust personality profiles may contribute to an overall view of a candidate where other assessment methods have also been implemented. Personality measures are unlikely, however, to provide a definitive picture or an accurate prediction of a person’s potential performance.

Personality and performance

Whilst personality traits are useful ways of describing external behaviour, they are problematic if we are referring to stable internal causes of behaviour. Suggesting that a person is angry about something because they have low levels of agreeableness – an angry personality – is similar to proclaiming the sea is wet because it has the quality of wetness.

You may have experienced this misuse of personality concepts yourself if you have met someone excusing their own behaviour on the grounds they are a particular ‘social style’. Unfortunately, whilst this may seem a reasonable justification on the surface, it is a bit nonsensical. In a similar fashion to the example above, it is akin to proclaiming that their radiator is hot because it has the quality of heat.

With the exception of the trait ‘conscientiousness’, there seems to be no universal personality factors that can be used to predict with any accuracy measures of a person’s success at work.

In order to successfully link a personality trait to work performance we have to understand what performance actually means; this in its self is a difficult undertaking. While we can accurately say good performance in sales is about selling more products, it is much harder to delineate the component factors of good sales ability.

A list of sales competences may fail to take into account a host of additional factors that contribute to performance, for example:

• Differing sales context
• Differing demographic cultures
• Personal issues
• Motivational factors
• Company culture

These can be just some of the significant variables influencing performance outcomes. Perhaps in the future ‘job performance’ will be better understood, enabling a clearer link to emerge with personality traits. But until then, assessing personality as a criterion for any prospective job performance will be more an art than a science.

A clear understanding

Despite the above caveats, learning about the diversity of personality types can be very useful for the development of teams and cross-functional groups. Learning to understand interpersonal di­fferences encourages people to widen their appraisals of other’s behaviour and what it may mean. This may potentially expand a group’s behavioural norms. For example, a manager I worked with described her team as an “up for it, go getting team…except Dave, who is quiet and thoughtful …but that’s ok, we realise he prefers to reflect and someone needs to….!”

Without this level of insight it is an easy step for a group unaware of their own dynamics to ostracise and exclude people whose personality style is even slightly at odds with the group norm. To avoid communication breakdown people need to be flexible to other’s ‘styles’.

This can ensure that people like ‘Dave’ have the necessary psychological space to contribute and grow in teams that may be composed of more extroverts. As well as helping us understand other’s diverse approaches to life, personality tools help us understand our own behaviour. “Oh wad some power the giftie gie us. To see oursel’s as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, And foolish notion,” Robert Burns.

As individuals we are often blind to certain aspects of our own style and the impact it can have on others. Using personality metrics to understand our own personality can be revealing and very helpful as we seek to follow the still relevant advice ‘know thy self’. Gauging the a­ffect you have on others from a different position can, as the poet Robbie Burns suggests in his oft quoted poem, save us from many a blunder.

Useful personality metrics

Whilst the amount of personality tests and systems available are far too numerous to cover in this article, most fall into one of two categories:

• Normative tests: These involve measuring your relative score on separate traits and contrasting these against group norms, such as either the general population or specific group, for example NEO-PI-R.
• Ipsative tests: These prompt you to make choices between di­fferent options on a questionnaire. They are mutually exclusive so that choosing one option prevents you choosing an alternative. When calculated a profile will emerge that places you into a predefined specific category and various social style systems which confer labels and types to people. When people complain or rejoice at being ‘pigeon holed’ it is often the Ipsative type test they have experienced.

Which tests work?

Well, that depends on what you want to do with the results. There are a lot to choose from. Profiles available through the British Psychological Society (BPS) registered psychometricians are likely to be evidence-based and robust enough to confer some useful insight. As mentioned earlier, there is a growing consensus amongst researchers that the big five as represented by the NEO-PI-R test capture real functional di­fferences in personality in a relatively straight forward way.

Additionally, some new developments in the realms of ‘emotional intelligence’, although controversial with some psychologists, can provide a di­fferent take on behaviour and these can prove useful, especially when considering team dynamics and interpersonal skills training. Emotional Behaviours at Work (EBW) is one example of this type of test.

In the end

It seems common sense that certain personality types are good at certain jobs. While there may be some broad truth to the idea that certain temperaments gravitate towards certain job types, in the main, personality tests are not currently reliable indicators of individual career performance or success. There are too many possible variables at play, both in the types of personality assessment used and the how we might define performance in any given context. Personality tests can be an excellent way to develop insight into your own behavioural tendencies and those of others. Thus helping foster better/more tolerant relationships and strengthen teamwork. So, if getting on with others is important to you and your work, knowing who you are does matter.

Ian McGarry is an international business psychologist. He can be contacted directly at mcgarry.ian92@gmail.com

Simon North looks at motivation in the workplace to achieve high performance and success.

Motivation is one of those concepts which relate more to outcome and output than it does to input.

In other words, it is the consequence of a sequence of situations, contexts and events which allows somebody to feel that their motivation is OK.

Where performance and motivation are similar is that performance also is about output. But both issues do require a sensible and sensitive approach to the way that people work. Giving colleagues a sense of the direction of travel that they and the team overall are taking, plus consistent and regular communications about what needs doing, as well as how they are doing in terms of their feedback, are fundamentals to keeping motivation and performance high.

The sensitivity issue comes into play in terms of listening and tuning in to every individual on a regular basis. This does not have to be formalised and structured as part of the standard appraisal process. This is much more about day to day management and supervision.

In a workplace where the war for talent is making it tough to find good workers and where key skills are likely to be getting scarcer, the need to treat people well increases every day. Avoid over-measuring --whilst it is important to measure outputs and performance, over-measurement can be a real irritant to high-performing individuals and may reduce their level of motivation for what it is that they do.

It is far better to have regular input sessions on being clear about the future and the team’s expected performance, followed up by frequent shorter feedback conversations both one on one and in small groups to check that the individual and the team are going in the right direction.

If it sounds simple that’s because it is. One of the biggest mistakes that we can make is to over complicate what is really a simple, humanistic process based upon personal relationships.

Simon North co-founded Position Ignition for Organisations, to provide innovative solutions to help organisations manage their senior and most valuable workers more effectively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What great managers do

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

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

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

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

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

• focussing on people’s strengths

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

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

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

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

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

Why measurement matters

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

Measuring manager performance

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

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

Measuring team performance

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

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

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

Getting it right

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

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

 

  Tony Swift is the Managing Director of Apodi.