Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Field force motivation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Field force motivation

558
views

Published on

Published in: Business, Education

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
558
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
46
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • DC slide
  • DC slide
  • DC sllide
  • Pick up in 2005, summary of what happened in between 2001 – 2005 – targeting performance management metrics, secondary care structures, specialist structures. Aiding senior management team to get true perspective of rep & first line manager performance.
  • Abbott recognised the need to benchmark SFE elements in order to run a continual improvement programme This project commenced with a benchmarking project of the SFE elements through internal interviews and salesforce metric analysis The resulting grid of salesforce effectiveness elements enabled Abbott to prioritise areas for improvement An ongoing development programme was developed commencing with resource deployment
  • Pick up in 2005, summary of what happened in between 2001 – 2005 – targeting performance management metrics, secondary care structures, specialist structures. Aiding senior management team to get true perspective of rep & first line manager performance.
  • Verbalise potential and propensity and accoutn management strategy
  • Discuss the debate on 49&16 vs linear and impact on disruption, motivation and retention
  • New set of activiy kpis focused on account as a whole
  • Moving to a new salesforce structure impacted upon the segmentation and targeting. Already recognised as a weak area, it now needed immediate attention to be ready for the salesforce implementation The existing customer base and product targeting had to be re-evaluated to ensure best resource deployment A portfolio segmentation was required to focus the reduced resource to the optimum portfolio value accounts Managed care support was needed to deal with the increased number of PCO / PBC leads expected
  • 1 - Identify characteristics of High Value Customers this is how we developed the matrix I’ve just showed you!! Brainstorming and using 3rd party databases, existing research- Communication messages already in use (detail aid) advisory board salesforce knowledge 2 - Agree criteria for Potential with Sales and Marketing Agree products within the Potential Market (eg Ace 2’s) Define any other characteristics such as number of patients 3 - Blend available data to score each customer Utilise 3rd party and salesforce data to define values for ALL customers 4 - Rank ALL customers by the POTENTIAL Score 5 - Place 10% of customers into groups - deciles Decile 10 is the highest and will contain the top 10% of customers
  • This was the end point - a scored account base from which target lists could be derivde with clear value based measurement and ROI measurement possible
  • Over to DC
  • Good afternoon everyone.You will be pleased to know that this is the last plenary session of the day and if you are anything like me you’ll be looking forward to the champagne roundtables and a few more at 6.00pm I’m Damian Colehan Head of Sales Operations for the UK and Europe for Abbott Nick I’m Nick Merryfield General Manager of Health Sector Publishing Damian- lets start with a question! !Do you know how satisfied and motivated your salesforce is? Next slide
  • By the end of the presentation Damian and I would like to have achieved three objectives. Firstly, we would like you to be fundamentally questioning whether your field force is sufficiently motivated, satisfied and in the right condition, compared to your competition, to take on the sales force effectiveness initiatives you are wishing to implement. Secondly, to show you how an innovative UK benchmark survey has been used to measure and develop the propensity for field forces to take on sales force effectiveness, supplemented with real life examples of companies that have created the right and wrong environment . Finally, to engage you in participating in the first ever pan European SFE benchmark survey. Damian is going to share with you specific details as to how Abbott have continually benchmarked against their competitors to create the perfect environment to successfully implement SFE and It is my role to explain how the benchmark survey works, with real life results and trends that you will hopefully find beneficial from the last five years. Before I do though, back to Damian to ask you some questions.
  • So let me ask you then bullets build and read as is.
  • Thank you Damian.
  • I’d like to start by introducing the Pf Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey explaining why the organisation I represent is interested in assessing whether field forces are fit to take on sales force effectiveness. Pharmaceutical Field magazine is the flagship publication of Health Sector Publishing and the Uk’s market leading medical sales magazine. Our readership of 11,000 field based personnel, represents approximately 75% of all UK sales representatives. In 2001 we were keen to start an ongoing, annual process, to monitor trends within the medical sales industry in particular in relation to the emerging area of sales force effectiveness. At the time we had formulated a hypothesis, that companies were asking more of their teams through new initiatives, without checking they had the right environment in the field force to implement these changes. To understand more, Pf teamed up with an expert partner, the UK Royal Statistical Society and jointly produced a cross industry survey with six aims:
  • What are the factors which motivate the field force, how satisfied are they with these factors, do employees want to leave their employer and which companies are capable of attracting the best talent. The question of whether the field force actually use their Electronic Territory Management System was asked and we captured the actual remuneration packages being received.
  • The survey is fundamentally different from internal company surveys for two main reasons. Firstly, it allows a company the ability to benchmark their results against the industry and more importantly their direct competitors. Secondly, through using a computerised interrogation tool, the data can be analysed by an infinite number of parameters including sales performance, job role, number of companies worked for and time in industry.
  • For the first question r esponders were asked to rank their Top 5 most important work factors from a list of 16 standard parameters. The results in ranked order for 2006 are:
  • The most important movements are the drop in importance of individual bonus and personal development; combined with the increase in the importance of company culture, belief in the products being sold, relationship with manager and job security. This is a fundamental shift in behavior and it appears that employees are more than ever concerned that the company they work for treats them with respect, is stable and provides high quality products to sell. The days of motivating people through ambitious bonus schemes and personal development pathways appear to be on the wane. The drivers behind this change in the UK could be several high profile product withdrawals, the introduction of the concept of corporate social responsibility and several hundred redundancies.
  • Now that we know what is important to the field, lets look at how satisfied they are with these factors. Responders were asked to score their satisfaction with each motivational factor using a five point scale from Very Satisfied to Very Dissatisfied.
  • For the purposes of the presentation i have converted the results to a numerical scale ranging from 100 for Very Satisfied to -100 for Very dissatisfied.
  • Averaging the scores for the top seven most important motivational factors identifies that in 2002 all responders provided a score of 30, placing levels below ‘SATISFIED’. By 2006 satisfaction had increased 14% but still remained below satisfied. Using the interrogation tool to isolate representatives who claimed to have Highest sales performance, shows a more alarming trend. Satisfaction in this important group has actually gone down by seventeen percent over five years and is therefore effectively 34% lower than the All Responder group over five years.
  • The power of the survey lies in specific company data, overlaid against industry and competitor benchmarks. Let me show you some examples…
  • On the screen are the real life satisfaction graphs of a top 10 pharmaceutical company. Without the benefit of benchmark data one could conclude that as five out of the seven motivational factors are positive and indeed the field force are extremely satisfied with their Belief in the Products being sold. The results are not too bad and the company look like it could introduce new sales force effectiveness initiatives. OK, there are a couple of areas of dissatisfaction but it could be argued argued that no one is ever satisfied with their salary! Now, lets overlay the industry benchmark.
  • To start off with the main area of strength, Belief in Products Sold is no longer quite so exceptional. In fact it is distinctly average. For every one of Company X’s positive areas they are actually behind the industry and the picture is looking less positive. In terms of satisfaction with salary, which we dismissed as a false result, the company clearly have an issue.Using the interrogation tool, we can now overlay Company X’s four direct competitors in it’s main therapeutic market..
  • Besides Belief in Products every one of the top motivational factors is worse compared to their direct competitors. Overall, the picture is dismal picture with
  • Industry employees being on average twice as satisfied as those working in Company X and Company X’s four main competitors employees being nearly three times mort satisfied. The answer to the question of whether Company X’s employees are fit to take on sales for effectiveness is relatively obvious but yet the company maintained a strategy of implementing head office new ideas. Prior to undertaking the benchmark survey Company X had been relying on internal focussed ‘climate’ surveys to measure levels of satisfaction. For your reference, and use for later in the presentation, company X has just embarked on it’s third set of seniors sales managers in five years.
  • In contrast to Comp X are Comp A and Comp B.
  • The two organisations are vastly different. Company B is a large American owned multi national and Comp A a small, specialist organisation. The commonality between both is that they have extremely satisfied field forces and have successfully implemented major SFE initiatives over the last 18 months. From speaking with both companies it is felt that their achievements have been gained through communicating a clear and consistent long term vision, coupled with routinely measuring theoir progress against the industry and feeding back to the field force. Compared to Company X in the last five years Company A and B have had stable senior management and this seems to be reflected particularly in the company culture and people’s relationships with their managers.
  • So given all this information, do employees want to stay or book a place on the competitions next initial training programme?
  • Over the last five years the percentage of personnel wishing to leave their employer for a rival has dropped from nearly a quarter of the entire field force to sixteen percent. This represents a 33% change and a major shift in behaviour Unfortunately poor old Company X bucks this trend with nearly a quarter of their field force wishing to leave but as expected Company A & B employees are satisfied to stay and will be available to effectively implement further sales force effectiveness intiatives in 2007.
  • The final part of the survey provides a warning for anyone responsible for purchasing, implementing and encouraging the effective use of CRM. Through a series of questions over five years we have found:
  • Only half the field force will take a portable system in to the field most days, only 30% will always set a pre call objective, 40% may not bother with a post call report. You can expect 20% of face to face calls to be dishonestly recorded and this doubles to 40% for customers reported to be seen at meetings. If you are a company that measures key message delivery then expect 50% of recorded key messages to be made up. Anecdotally, we found that the companies who had kept their ETMS systems simple tended to fair the best and one of the very best result came form E-Merck who had developed their own in house system. You may be interested to read the following slide: Our conclusion from the survey is four fold: Choose your ETMS provider carefully, Keep it relatively simple, Interpret your post marketing research with caution and Engage your field to use ETMS correctly to gain good advantage over the competition.
  • The reverse of loosing people is obviously the ability to attract the best talent to the organisation.
  • In 2001/2002 the ranking went pretty much in line with sales turnover and size of field force, this pattern continued to do so for three years. This meant that GSK, Pfizer and Merck dominated proceedings until 2003/2004 upon which a very unexpected occurrence happened and the big players crashed out of the popularity stakes. So that we now have the following rankings.
  • With the exception of Sanofi-Aventis, the top slots are now filled by companies with field forces of no more than 300 representatives and the emergence throughout the rankings of small and medium size pharmaceutical companies has risen dramatically.
  • I hopefully have shown you the importance of establishing whether your field force is motivated and satisfied prior to introducing new SFE initiatives and the importance of benchmark data in finding out. I also hope that you have found benefit in the five year industry trends. Before I pass back to damian, I would just like to recap
  • Thanks very much Nick.In the final 10 minutes I want to share with you our journey over the past five years and how we have used the survey to help guide our continuous improvement focus. In 2001 Abbott acquired Knoll which took us in six months in PRIMARY care anyway from a salesforce of 60 to 250 and all the complexity that goes with that.Such as mirrored teams, cultural integration, portfolio priorities changes which took Abbott from a one product antibiotic team to a five product portfolio. Trust on both sides takes time to build as many of you who have been through this process know only too well. To make thinks worse for the salesforce we had only just launched ETMS in Abbott and Knoll who had used their system for at least three years had to move to the Abbott system . A lot to take on in six months and as you would expect we became very internally focused
  • 2003 was a difficult year.After the success of the integration and the internal focus senior management outside the affiliates decided it was time to bring in the management consultants……It really became a year of performance management, training, restructuring the sales management team from a product focus with large geography to a small geographic focus across all products. We introduced one size fits all metrics with Europe and rolled out a seven module SFE programme.We fundamentally shifted our incentives to market share growth only in line with Europe with products with flat market shares.We had a major reorganisation after the early termination of an co-promotion agreement which resulted in the loss of over 70 postions in the salesforce with only 20 redundancies. On a brighter note we saw the emergence of an excellent five year strategic plan which we started to communicate widely and in an open and very honest way about the future and the need for further change. However, it would be a transition to a larger secondary care portfolio, not immediate shifts in a sporadic manner.It also shifted the priority to a local perspective and engaged the whole organisation.
  • So how did we do Probably our lowest point. Quite a number of factors are positive but below industry and some real concerns around similar factors to 2002.We were not disheartened.
  • 2005 was a good year. We began to really bed in the strategic plan for 2005-2010 time frame.It was focused on 6 strategic drivers that the whole company could see were issues that needed addressing.It included 14 imperatives that were to be delivered in 2005.I mentioned earlierthat for the salesforce it was very transparent that there would be a transition from a Primary Care focus to more secondary care focus in line with changes in the NHS and our product pipeline. So, when we needed to further reduce our Primary Care salesforce everyone knew it was coming and we had six months to transition so almost all of the affected individuals could move to other positions in the organisation. We began to focus our SFE initiatives around the salesforce need in the UK which saw the salesforce engaged.We looked at communication with the salesforce We launched a new company car scheme giving representatives and RM’s the chance flex up in price by 20% at their expense or down 20% which saved them money and company car tax.This obviously allows individuals to have abetter model within an already extensive choice of cars. We simplified our incentives and went back to volume based growth targets that the salesforce could relate to.We introduced salary benchmarking so at various grades in the salesforce there was a minimum salary for that grade.This allowed us to move quite a number of salaries up outside the normal annual pay review. These initiatives proved popular with the salesforce but we also worked hard motivational factors which make Abbott such a great place to work.
  • Abbott UK salespeople put salry first obviously but theyput great emphasis on job security and the culture in which they work along with therelationship with their manager and sales bonus
  • Now this is a profile in which we are all proud of at Abbott All 16 motivational factors are positive and 14 of them are higher than the industry or our peers.This is unsupassed in the 2005/6 survey
  • Transcript

    • 1. Driving Operational ChangeWhilst Maintaining FieldForce MotivationDamian ColehanJulian SnapeNick Merryfield
    • 2. AgendaThe Abbott journey – implementing change and improving productivityMonitoring success – what measures can be used?Measuring motivation and satisfactionReflective leadership Company 2
    • 3. Environment & ObjectivesThe industry’s sales forces are facing unprecedented change: - Key account management - Reduction in size - New roles - Fragmentation of NHS decision making - Evolution from primary care to secondary care focusDescribe journey of sales force optimisation & effectiveness in Abbott from 2001 – 2007Share examples of methods to achieve the maintenance & improvement of morale duringchangeCreate discussion and key learnings through Q&A Company 3
    • 4. Sales force optimisation - 6 main elements Size, structure, roles and focus Resource of salesforce activity [targeting, frequency & coverage] Optimisation Segmentation Measurement and Targetingmetrics and make tactical Field ForceAbility to monitor salesforce Optimisation Customer targets, prescribers and influencers defined by value Motivation & Satisfactiondecisions Salesforce Incentives Planning Training and Salesforce and management Ability and tools of salesforce to effectively plan at a territory Competencies incentive scheme modelling and and customer level sales target forecasting Ability of salesforce to get the company message delivered effectively. Coaching and competencies. Company 4
    • 5. The Abbott journey……. • Refocused linear • Account management • Integrated Knoll Ltd primary care team • Account based targeting • 4 primary care teams • Expanded secondary care capability • Local business planning • 1 hospital team • Expanded HCD team • Personal development planning • Small HCD team • Invest in 1st line manager • Performance management development 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007… - Teams operating in - Introduction of - Portfolio changes - 65 Primary care clusters of isolation individual performance representatives - Acceleration of management metrics and - Low accountability specialist products - 100 secondary care and performance rankings NHS liaison specialists - Focus on integration Company 5
    • 6. Abbott Case Study - Review Optimisation ElementsAbbott recognised the need to benchmark sales force productivity in order to run acontinual improvement programmeThis project commenced with a benchmarking project of the productivity elementsthrough internal interviews and salesforce metric analysisAn ongoing development programmewas developed commencingwith resource deployment Company 6
    • 7. The Abbott journey……. • Refocused linear • Account management • Integrated Knoll Ltd • primary care team • Account based targeting • 4 primary care teams • Expanded secondary care capability • Local business planning • 1 hospital team • Expanded HCD team • Personal development planning • Small HCD team • Invest in 1st line manager • Performance management development 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007… - Teams operating in - Introduction of - Portfolio changes - 65 Primary care clusters of isolation individual performance representatives - Acceleration of management metrics and - Low accountability specialist products - 100 secondary care and performance rankings NHS liaison specialists - Focus on integration Company 7
    • 8. Resource Levels – outcomes from strategicplanning process • Design a sales force structure that would deliver the financial target!! • Headcount constraints • No redundancy policy • Future proof • Flexible resource if necessary Company 8
    • 9. Resource Levels – Analysis• There was an existing salesforce consisting of 2 mirrored teams, these were believed to be over resourced for product portfolio expectations• Project used a mixture of key personnel meetings, analysis and resource modelling. Resource Level Impact of Too high NHS Change Unknown impact of changes to Product portfolio impact of high market pressure and patent expiry Resource PCOs and emerging local changes Issues Retain Best Minimise People Disruption Manage motivation, satisfaction & Product portfolio near term targets loyalty challenging Company 9
    • 10. What is the right deployment of resource? Key methods of sales force configuration Maintaining customer relationships Motivation Retaining quality Delivering the numbers Implementing brand strategy Company 10
    • 11. Resource Optimisation Model - Drivers Product Skills and Customer Value Constraints Strategies StructureRequired share of Required Corporate voice, frequency Prescribers and headcount, Suitable skills for and coverage, influencers, employee issues, different selling disease future opportunity management environments and management, value, profitability, structure, territory customer types,KOL development sales sensitivity, sizes, call territory size andand complexity of optimum capacity, structure the sales model customer list size geography Resource Optimisation Model Number of FTEs - Skills, Customer Groups, Team Structure, Territory BoundariesModel created scenarios including FTE workload index, then analysed disruption Company 11
    • 12. Resource Optimisation Model - Drivers Product Skills and Customer Value Constraints Strategies StructureRequired share of Required Corporate voice, frequency Prescribers and headcount, Suitable skills for and coverage, influencers, employee issues, different selling disease future opportunity management environments and management, value, profitability, structure, territory customer types,KOL development sales sensitivity, sizes, call territory size andand complexity of optimum capacity, structure the sales model customer list size geography Resource Optimisation Model Number of FTEs -- Skills, Customer Groups, Team Structure, Territory Boundaries Number of FTEs Skills, Customer Groups, Team Structure, Territory Boundaries Optimum Salesforce Resource Deployment Company 12
    • 13. Business Value Concentration – ground up Business Value Index Concentration 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%Business Value 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Accounts Company 13
    • 14. Resource Levels - ImplementationRecommendation was to move to a single team structure with a FTE reduction ofnearly 30%Most customer relationships maintained -customer disruption of 29%Clear customer focused sales force structure able to deliver new strategies - account management - local business planningThis would require the development of new KPIs centred around targetcustomers target nurses with activity targets that were within the capacity Company 14
    • 15. Key Account Management Company 15
    • 16. Key Account Level TargetingAlready recognised as a new area, it now needed immediate attention to push business forward NHS Liaison Support Address Portfolio Account Changing Product Changes Adoption Process Strategy Changing Customer Base Company 16
    • 17. Key Account Based Segmentation and TargetingThis encompassed a number of elements: How is targeting What elements describe a implementation target customer or account measured ? ? Segmentation and Targeting What mix of influencers How will buy-in be and prescribers ? achieved in the salesforce ? What data sources should be used to value customers/accounts ? Company 17
    • 18. Calculating True ValueEach account was valued for the relevant portfolio using 2 elements; Account POTENTIAL Value PROPENSITYVolume of Degree ofOPPORTUNITY to LIKELIHOODprescribe or refer of increase in futurebrand specific prescribing, influencedisease treatments or referral for the brand Company 18
    • 19. Value Measurements POTENTIAL Customer PROPENSITY Value Volume of OPPORTUNITY to prescribe or Degree of LIKELIHOOD refer brand specific disease treatments of increase in future prescribing, influence or referral for the brand •Market sales •Own product sales – growth/volume/market •Volume of patients by disease profile – e.g share age, ethnicity, socio economic etc •Specific competitor usage profile •Practice size – number of GPs, nurses, list •Attitudinal data – adoption, attitude to size treatment of disease •Disease prevalence •PCT influence – formularies, protocols, •QOF data guideline •Disease management clinics/mechanisms for •PBC status and influence generating patients •Customer typology (qualification, special •Number of beds/treatment capability by interest etc) disease* •Disease management structure •Patient treatments/admissions by disease* •Hospital formularies and protocols •Hospital spend on disease area* •Funding •PCT funding/financial data •KOL •Size of catchment / referral areas* •Sophistication of structure to treat* Typically Secondary Care measurements Company 19
    • 20. Sophisticated Value in Clear Segments Looking Loyal Raving The accounts were grouped into B Fan suitable segments relative to the brand strategy and communication APROPENSITY channel to be used. Lost Lodger Loyal They were combined to determine a portfolio value. The salesforce targets were crossed with accessibility to ensure a Saboteur Lost Looking successful salesforce implementation POTENTIAL Company 20
    • 21. Did it Work????Company 21
    • 22. Results - targeted activityActivity is more focused on the productive targets at the right frequency GP Target Fr equency 100% 90% 31% 80% Target Freq x4+ Target coverage up from 70% 58% 11% 73% to 89% Target Freq x3 60% 50% 13% Increased size of productive Target Freq x2 40% frequency segment from 18% 10% 30% 11% Target Freq x1 31% to 58% 20% 11% 27% 10% Target Freq x0 11% 0% Nov 02 MAT 2003 Nov 03 MAT 2006 Company 22
    • 23. brand Sales increase of 22% Market Share increase of 7%140000012000001000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 Company 23
    • 24. What else changed?•Change in behaviour – account based targeting•Local business planning•Change in measurement – clearly defined personal KPIs•Change in incentives and rewards•Introduction of finely managed coaching system•Introduction of personal development plans•Increased days on road – 165 rose to 180 per rep• RM coaching days increased by 30%•Sickness reduced by 18%•Turnover reduced from 13% to 4% Company 24
    • 25. How Satisfied and MotivatedIs Your Salesforce and HowDo You Measure It?Damian ColehanNick Merryfield
    • 26. Session Objectives1. Demonstrate positive effect of benchmarking motivation through field force change • Limitations of relying on internal surveys for climate checking2. Show six year trends relating to industry motivation & SFE • Real life examples of creating the right and wrong environment3. Abbott initiatives taken to assist in developing motivation4. Challenge whether your field force is motivated to embrace SFE and continuous improvement initiatives Company 26
    • 27. Questions• Do you: – Know the level of motivation in your salesforce compared to the industry? – Know what motivational factors are important to them? – REALLY consider their motivation through change – Impact on: – Sales – Activity – Customer perception of the company• Abbott very keen to know during period of change ~ 2004-07 Company 27
    • 28. Measuring Your Field Force’sFitness to Take On Sales ForceEffectiveness?The Pf Company Perception,Motivation and Satisfaction Survey1. Survey Background2. 6 Year Industry Trends3. Real life examples of good & bad environments
    • 29. The Pf Company Perception, Motivation andSatisfaction Survey - Background• Pharmaceutical Field Magazine: • 2001 to 2007 • 12,000 responses • 2,300 in 2007 • Over 75 companies • Mix of primary, secondary, hospital, HDM, RBM, NSM responses• Expert Partner • Royal Statistical Society at the Nottingham Trent University Company 29
    • 30. The Pf Company Perception, Motivation andSatisfaction Survey - 6 Survey Aims• In relation to the field force: 1. What MOTIVATES them 2. How SATISFIED are they with motivational factors 3. RETENTION & RECRUITMENT 4. Who are EMPLOYERS of CHOICE 5. How do they use ETMS 6. Actual REMUNERATION packages Company 30
    • 31. Survey Method• Different from internal company surveys by: – Benchmarking against: • The Industry • Competitors (minimum of 4) – Sub analyse by infinite parameters via an ‘interrogation tool’: • Job Role • Length of time in role & industry & # of companies worked for • Sales performance • Geography • Full time / part time • Contract / head count Company 31
    • 32. CATEGORY 1:Motivating Factorsof the Field ForceQ. Responders were asked to rank their Top 7 most important work factors from a list of 16 options.
    • 33. Change in Important Work Factors 2002 to 2007 PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY TOP 7 IMPORTANT WORK FACTORSRank 2002 2007 Change 07 to 02 1 Salary Salary = 2 Personal Development Rel with Manager Up 1 3 Rel with Manager Company Culture Up 6 4 Bonus (Down 5 in 07) Belief in Products Up 2 5 Success Recognition Job Security Up 2 6 Belief in Product Success Recognition Down 1 7 Job Security Personal Development Down 5Rel with Manager = Relationship with Manager Company 33
    • 34. CATEGORY 2:How Satisfied are theField ForceQ. Responders were asked to score theirsatisfaction with each motivational factor: Very Satisfied +2 Satisfied +1 Average/No Opinion 0 Dissatisfied -1 Very Dissatisfied -2
    • 35. Satisfaction SCALE CONVERSION Very Satisfied 100 Satisfied 50 Average 0 Dissatisfied -50 Very Dissatisfied -100 Company 35
    • 36. Change in Satisfaction Very Satisfied 100 Satisfied 50 Average 0 Dissatisfied -50 Very Dissatisfied -100Change in Average Level of Satisfaction With Top 7 Motivational Factors 02 to 06 2002 2006 % Change 02 to 06All Responders 30 35 14%Highest Sales Reps 38 33 -17% In 2007 – All Responders Average Satisfaction Remained at 35 – Highest Sales Performers Increased to Average 37 Company 36
    • 37. The Power of the SurveyReal Life ExampleTop 10 Pharmaceutical Co.Satisfaction with Top 7 Motivational Factors
    • 38. Comp X - Satisfaction With Top 7 Factors 1.5 Scale: Very Satisfied +2 Satisfied +1 Average/No Opinion 0 1 Dissatisfied -1 Very Dissatisfied -2Satisfaction 0.5 Comp X 0 Sa Re Be Su Jo Co Pe b la l li c r m so W ef ce ry Se pa ith n ss in c ny al ur Pr M Re De ity Cu an od c v og lt u a uc el ge op ni re ts r ti me on nt -0.5 Company 38
    • 39. Satisfaction with Top 7 Factors 1.5 Scale: Very Satisfied +2 Satisfied +1 Average/No Opinion 0 Dissatisfied -1 1 Very Dissatisfied -2Satisfaction 0.5 Comp X Industry 0 -0.5 Company 39
    • 40. Satisfaction With Top 7 FactorsVery Satisfied +2 Satisfied +1 1.5 Average/No Opinion 0 Dissatisfied -1 Very Dissatisfied -2 1Satisfaction 0.5 Comp X Industry Competitors 0 Be Co Su Jo Sa Re Pe b lie c la rs m lW ce Se ry pa on fi ith ss cu n ny al Pr Re M rit De Cu od an y co ve ltu ag uc gn lo re er ts -0.5 pm iti o en n t Company 40
    • 41. Satisfaction of Top 7 Factors Very Satisfied +2 Satisfied +1 1.5 Average/No Opinion 0 Dissatisfied -1 Very Dissatisfied -2 1Satisfaction 0.5 Comp X Industry Competitors 0 Be Co Su Jo Sa Re PeAveraging all satisfaction scores identifies real problems: b lie c la rs m lW ce Se ry pa on fi ith ss cu n ny al Pr Re M rit De Cu od an y•Industry employees are twice as satisfied compared to Comp. X co ve ltu ag uc gn lo re er ts -0.5 pm iti o en n t•Competitor employees are nearly three times more satisfied Company 41
    • 42. Example of aHigh Performing CompaniesComp AComp B
    • 43. Comp A Comp B t Industry en pm e lo ev a lD on rs Pe y rit cu Se o n Jo b n it i og ec R s es cc Su tu re ul C n y pa 43 om s C u ct od Pr n fi ie el Company B er ag an M ith W el R ry la Sa 1 01.5 0.5 Satisfaction
    • 44. CATEGORY 3AttritionDo theyWant to Stay or Go?
    • 45. AttritionQ. Do you intend to move from your present employerin the next 12 months? • 2007 = 14% said YES • 2002 = 24% said YES • Change in 6 years = -35% • Comp X, A&B = 23%, <5% Company 45
    • 46. CATEGORY 4Use of Electronic TerritoryManagement SystemsSeries of Questions to Establish Whether Field ForcesActually Use ETMS
    • 47. Summary of ETMS Use• Only 50% will take a system with them most days• Only 30% will definitely set a pre call objective every call• 40% may not bother with a post call report• 20% of 1:1 calls may be dishonestly recorded• 40% of meeting calls may be dishonest• And 50% of key messages may be made up• Conclusion: • Choose your ETMS provider carefully – home grown maybe best! • Interpret your post marketing research with caution • Engage your field force to get a quick win over the competition Company 47
    • 48. CATEGORY 5Employer of ChoiceIs Your Organisation Capable ofAttracting the Best Talent?
    • 49. Employers of Choice 2002Went With Company £Turnover Company Rank 2002 GlaxoSmithKline 1 Pfizer 2 Merck Sharp & Dohme 3 Janssen-Cilag 4 Eli Lilly & Company 5 Wyeth 6 Roche 7 Schering Plough 8 Company 49
    • 50. Employers of Choice 2007All Change Company Rank 2007 Roche 1 Boehringer Ingelheim 2 Eli Lilly & Company 3 Sanofi-Aventis 4 Schering Plough 5 Janssen-Cilag 6 Schering 7 Novartis 8 Wyeth 9 Proctor & Gamble 10 Company 50
    • 51. Summary• The survey will answer: 1. What Motivates the different groups of reps 2. How Satisfied these groups are 3. Whether they want leave you 4. Do they use your ETMS 5. Can you attract the best talent 6. Are you paying competitive remuneration packages• Back to Damian Colehan Company 51
    • 52. The Abbott StoryA Tale of Two Halves
    • 53. The Abbott StoryFirst Half2001 – 2003• Knoll integration 2001.• Small Pharma business to midsize in six months.• Merging of two cultures and systems.• Focus on cultural integration.• ETMS launch. Company 53
    • 54. 2001 - 20032001 – 2003 cont.• Realignment of salesforce evaluation of larger Secondary Care business.• Salesforce re-alignment.• Development of five year strategic plan.• Introduction of European SFE programme.• Market share based incentives (limited bonus).• Investment in Regional Manager training. – Performance management• Little consideration on field force motivation Company 54
    • 55. 2003 The Results - Levels of Satisfaction Average work factor satisfaction score ( profile scenario 1 ) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 r s t y e ge rit y ct s e t ie em ss en y es re ry ic s in a u e m li t e m om al ltu la ol nu el an cu d h bi ys c p n s cu Sa P Bo ip m se pro sc n si ls s uc elo uto for y ar tp re a ev n ct Jo b nt sp o is r A y pa C uc ire se ha ra ou ld i lit od d e S re p fy a ab om pr ith pr al ap .o on at C e w in on t. g rs n ur ip ef iti r uc co Pe cou ut h li d St e F l s Be Ad R AcR e Company 55
    • 56. The Abbott StorySecond Half ~ 2004 to 2006 and beyond
    • 57. 2004 / 2006• More change expected BUT• High consideration of FF motivation: – Sales management restructure. – Embed strategic plan – new sense of purpose and direction. – Open honest communication. – Second restructure of Primary Care (no redundancies). – Focus on local SFE priorities. – New company car scheme. – Sales incentives volume growth based. – Salary benchmarking. – Re-introduction of overseas conference. – Greater FF involvement in customer targeting. • Evolution to key account management. Company 57
    • 58. Top 5 Important Work Factorsfor Abbott Personnel Of the 16 motivational factors available to choose from, Abbott ranked the following five as the most important1. Salary2. Job Security3. Company Culture4. Relationship with Manager5. Bonus Company 58
    • 59. R el s hi p Pe w ns ith io A d n cc ou ire sch n ct e 0.5 1.5 -0.5 0 1 2 P er tab ma me so il na na ity ge A l d f or r dd ev sa iti on Sh el l op es al ar m re e s e sp ch nt C o e om ns me i R pa bili e ny t ie s B co g el c ie . o A ultu f f u re S in p you tonCompany tru r r o ct es su my .A en c p p t p ce s ra ro s is du al c sy t s Jo st b em59 se cu Fu C tu ar rity re po pr lic od y uc Sa t p la ip ry el in B e on us Average satisfaction scores for all work factors Profile Satisfaction With Motivational Factors 2006 Abbott Laboratories Company Selection
    • 60. Do People Want to Stay or Go in 2006? Career progression in the next 12 months AbbottLaboratories Move comp Move pos Profile Remain Other Selected Companies 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Company 60
    • 61. Company Culture Satisfied with company culture In 2006:2003 Abbott Laboratories 19% greater than dissatisfied no opinion industry Profile satisfied 20% greater than in Selection ( 51 ) Abbott three years 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ago Satisfied with company culture Abbott Laboratories Dissatisf ied2006 Profile No Opinion Satisfied Selected Companies 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Company 61
    • 62. SummaryComparing the 2003 satisfaction results against 2006, for thesame 7 factors for the Highest Performers: Abbott Industry 2003 +0.88 +0.38 2006 +1.44 +0.33The industry’s average satisfaction had dropped by 17%Abbott’s average satisfaction had increased by 63% Company 62
    • 63. The Abbott StoryAnd Beyond –Satisfaction Levels this Year ~ 2007
    • 64. R el s hi p wi th di re Pe ct Be ns ma 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 1 lie C ion nag f i om s e n c r pr pan he es y me en cu t p ltu ro re Ac d co Au uc t Pe unt Jo tono s Ad rs ab b s m di on ility ec y tio al f o u ri R nal dev r s tyCompany ec re e al St og. spo lopm es ru o n ct f y sib en .A o i t pp ur s lit ie ra uc s is c Sh al es ar sys s e64 sc t em h C em ar e Fu po tu lic re Sa y pr la od uc Bo ry t p nu ip s el in e Average satisfaction scores for all work factors And Beyond – Satisfaction Levels 2007 Profile Abbott Laboratories Company Selection
    • 65. Reflective Leadership Company 65
    • 66. Reflective Leadership• Engage all the stakeholders – MD/CEO, Board, Sales & Marketing etc• Have clear focus with end results explicitly defined• Have detailed planning with contingencies• Make the difficult decisions at the right time – do not delay• Have constant communication• Ensure the sales force is trained to operate in the new environment• Monitor performance through pro-active use of KPIs and external benchmarking data• Find the right supplier – build trust and understanding & brief them clearly Listen and be open to feedback• Operate a continuous improvement culture – review regularly Company 66
    • 67. THANK YOU Questions?Company 67