What does it take to keep your employees on board? In the 1980s, employees looked for performance pay. In the 1990s, they wanted job security. Employees' needs have changed as society has, yet one thing has remained the same: Employees are always looking for something more out of their jobs. They want  better quality of life at work. 

Need a solution? Treat your workforce the way you treat your customers. When you think about improving your customers' quality of life, what do you picture? Someone who lives optimally, achieves goals, and reaches full potential. Now envision your employees in those terms. Are your employees satisfied enough to stay with your company? Quality of life at work helps unlock the door to employee retention—firms that do not align work with employee needs increase the likelihood of able employees quitting, and leaving less talented staff behind. 

The following is a guide on how to understand and capitalize on your employee-firm relationship. Remember, retention starts before recruitment, not at resignation. 

Many companies view turnover as an inherent cost of operating a business, but a high turnover rate is a red flag that indicates things are not going well. Employers need to pinpoint the breakdowns in the relationship with employees. So, what do these breakdowns look like? 					

Unrealistic expectations set by recruiter

Team members not prepared for new hire on first day

Some of these instances may be easier to pinpoint than others, but the following are more concrete signs that indicate your employee may be leaving: 					

Unusual change in behavior patterns, such as atypical attire or odd lunch hours

Although it is critical to recognize potential breakdowns and signs, the real goal is to find solutions. The mapping of these key phases should be seen as a guide for creating strategic—and sustainable—retention plans. 

The "Emergent Life Cycle"   is a retention model and a map that provides a framework for understanding contact between employees and the organization. The following eight stages are the crucial points for helping a firm make favorable impressions on future and current employees, and for formulating a strong retention strategy. 

 This first phase is the time when potential employees seek out open positions. Consider what attracts you to other people—confidence, authority, and personality. Employees looking at your company are looking for those same qualities. Just as they want a firm with a strong reputation and a solid work environment, you want a candidate with the appropriate character. Finding someone who fits in with your company culture will be beneficial to both parties in the long run.  

 chooses its candidates. The show picks from a pool of thousands and has to get down to that one final contestant. If the judges chose a winner from a select pool of trained or naturally gifted vocalists, then they could get to their next singing star much easier. But along the way, the judges have to sift through hundreds of unqualified wannabes.  

Recruiters at pharmaceutical companies face a similar situation. During the time from open position to hire, recruiters are faced with large pools of candidates. This means the ability to pick and choose, but it also means sifting through lots of unqualified candidates. The goal during this period should be identifying candidates whose values align with your company's culture.  

A note of caution, though: Top talent at one company doesn't always translate at another. A job applicant whose skill set appears perfect on paper may not necessarily be the right fit at your organization. For example, if your company considers teamwork its highest priority, hiring a candidate whose previous firm valued competitiveness above all else could create a conflict.  

 The period from hire to start can be overwhelming. To make it easier, fellow employees, or ideally, future team members, can help a new employee transition into the company and serve as catalysts for his success. Even a gesture as simple as introducing team members and their positions can be greatly beneficial; the employee will feel comfortable asking about future projects and assignments. 

 Just because you held a welcome party on your new hire's first day doesn't mean your job is done. The first two weeks are a period of adjustment and growth. An orientation that informs your new employee of what he needs to work on is expected, but even more beneficial is an explanation of how to work and succeed at your company. Include team members in the orientation so they can demonstrate how the team works, and what tools are used to succeed. This way your new employee is prepared to do the job in a way that is in line with your needs. 

 After six months, the new employee will no longer be "new" and the job may become routine and unchallenging. Create career development initiatives, such as job-related training and senior mentoring, to keep employees challenged. Employees are always looking to develop new skills, but if you don't provide the means, they will look elsewhere. 

 As the employee continues to grow with the company, it's crucial to provide constant encouragement and support. The six-to-24-month period is a time when employees develop greater job autonomy. It's a good idea to continue mentoring programs through this stage, to help the employee maintain good work habits. Bad habits are hard to break. 

 You think that since employees have been with a company for two years they're in for the long haul? Not so. From this stage forward, you must continue working hard to give employees reason not to look elsewhere.  

Companies are realizing how important it is to support an employee's personal growth. Tuition reimbursement, flextime, and on-site childcare are great ways to reward employees. This is the phase when it's most important to think about work/life balance; firms that do not understand this end up with staff members who are often dissatisfied, unmotivated, and disengaged.  

 Regardless of the employee-firm relationship, you will have star employees who leave. Instead of dwelling on feelings of betrayal, identify the root causes of separation and use them to strengthen your future retention strategy. Employees complain about feeling cast off at the exit interview; use it as an opportunity to solidify a working relationship.

Gaps can exist at each stage so it helps to clarify which has the most impact on your workforce. Who better to ask than the people who are most directly affected? Employees know from the front lines what is going right and wrong, and what can be improved upon. Having in-person conversations with employees—hearing it from the horse's mouth, so to speak—can be a more efficient way of realizing systemic gaps, and formulating solutions. 

Outside vendors are sometimes helpful, but be wary of canned solutions—answers to your retention issues must align with your company's unique goals.

Avoid problems by keeping strategies fresh. Periodically reassess your needs to ensure that your company is able to progressively change with the evolving workforce environment. 

By focusing on all eight stages, you'll be able to retain a solid workforce and provide an environment that fosters productivity and commitment. With 77 million baby boomers on their way to retirement and only 44 million potential workers to replace them, how will the shortage of top talent affect your company? Don't wait to find out. 

 is president of Retensa. He can be reached at 

Articles

Supplement

What does it take to keep your employees on board? In the 1980s, employees looked for performance pay. In the 1990s, they wanted job security. Employees' needs have changed as society has, yet one thing has remained the same: Employees are always looking for something more out of their jobs. They want better quality of life at work.

The New Customer: Your Workforce

I used to think I would stay in Big Pharma until I retired. After nine years at Eli Lilly and 14 in the pharma industry, I felt I was in the right place at the right time. And then I noticed my colleagues leaving to enter the world of another "B": biotech. As a steady trickle of them departed for better money and satisfying jobs, it was hard not to notice Big Pharma's fallouts—it's a heavily bureaucratic and political institution that favors status quo over change and progress. 

For better or for worse, there seems to be a lot of people like me, folks who are discovering that the biotech world gives them the satisfactions and rewards they always wanted—and then some. I haven't seen any numbers I trust yet, but it's pretty clear that in the war for talent, Big Pharma now has a powerful competitor. If companies want to have a sporting chance in that war, they need to start thinking about why biotech is so appealing—and how they can get some of that appeal themselves. 

In a lot of ways, biotech is what I used to think pharma was—the right place at the right time. That's partly a matter of technology: With its focus on genetics, biotech is closer to where the action is in pharmaceutical innovation, with a concentration on pharmacogenomics and research that focuses in on patients rather than diseases. But biotech is also at an appealing point in the industry lifecycle. The field is no longer tiny—according to Richard Oliver, author of 

, biotech is a $1 trillion industry in the United States. The top companies, such as Amgen and Genentech, are giving traditional pharma companies a run for their money. 

 named Amgen fourth on the S&P 500 in 2004 for being the most "future-oriented" of the 500 corporations on the list. But at the same time, most individual biotech companies are relatively small and far more entrepreneurial than the traditional pharma company. 			

Mark Ahn, Ph.D, who left Big Pharma to become president and CEO of Hana Biosciences in San Francisco, felt that the challenge in Big Pharma is that innovations and advancements are slowed. "The bureaucracy which comes with size can also choke off sources of innovation and energy," Ahn said. "A smaller organization can take advantage of its size and focus, while being mindful of the ever-changing demands of growth." The freedom to explore and experiment was an enticement to Ahn, who felt that in addition to more scientific opportunities, the biotech model was more focused on new experiences that concentrate on patients.  

It's no surprise that employees who left Big Pharma for biotech are doing it partly for the money. The success of biotech's innovations has been financially rewarding, and potential employees are finding attractive packages getting more difficult to resist. Innovation plus interest makes stocks grow exponentially, and pharma companies are aware of biotech's scientific and financial success. And they want a piece of the pie, too. Over the past few years, you'd be hard pressed to find a company that has not purchased or does not have a partnership with a biotech firm. Case in point: Eli Lilly's recent medicines, Cialis and Byetta, came out of a collaboration with a biotech firm; Pfizer's new inhaled insulin is from Nektar.  

Some might call this a marriage of convenience since Big Pharma needs access to the next blockbuster drug and biotech needs life-sustaining cash. But these marriages might soon end in separation. Smaller biotech firms like CV Therapeutics and Jazz Pharmaceuticals are following the lead of Genentech and Amgen by becoming more independent. As opportunities and cash flow into smaller biotechs, these companies are not only developing innovative science, but also their own marketing organizations. 

This marketing move is to biotech's advantage. Big Pharma has to wrestle with the payers and battle margins, while marketing in popular disease states. But specialty markets are less sensitive to marketplace pressures and require less sales and marketing expense to develop. These models can be considered viable options because the urgency for new science has improved the return on investment (ROI) of these types of business models. They seem to make more sense in today's marketplace. (See "A New Business Model Emerges".) 

But money's not the whole story. I was driven from Big Pharma partly by an inability to get people to make decisions. For George Hill, who left a 15-year career with AstraZeneca to work for biotech, the push was his disappointment with the way the company was selling: "You had four to six reps selling the same product to the same doctor," Hill said. "In my mind these mirrored counterparts promoted poor work habits."  

But despite a feeling of Big Pharma burnout, both "Bs" operate on the same principles of implementation: 					

Anticipate a new product need and make a decision. 

The big difference between Big Pharma and biotech is how well and how quickly they can execute these principles. In this case, size does matter. The flatter organizational structures of biotech make them faster and more responsive. This is an attractive opportunity for individuals from Big Pharma, like me, who were frustrated with the process and bureaucracy. 

There's no question that advancement in larger companies takes longer. Couple this with fewer opportunities due to the downsizing of Big Pharma, and people need to make the choice to wait it out or make the switch. By making the switch to biotech, I received quicker validation of my skills and was able to compete for better positions and higher pay. The flatter biotech bureaucracy permitted me to hold a position and title that enabled me to implement my ideas and influence my decisions. 

Admittedly, I learned my skills in Big Pharma. On many levels, big companies are great places to learn, with internal training institutes, budgets for learning, and the possibility of outside opportunities. But, too often, after Big Pharma prepares employees for success, it can't come up with career opportunities on a schedule that matches the individual's desire and competency levels. Frustrated employees have little choice but to look elsewhere.  

Employees are leaving large pharma firms for biotech. Does Big Pharma understand what makes its employees tick? Biotech's growing workforce might indicate it does not. A 16-year veteran of Big Pharma, Neil Corbin enjoyed his tenure as a district sales manager for Pfizer, but enjoys his position as division sales manager for CV Therapeutics even more. "What I really like about working at CVT is the relative speed with which things happen, the lack of redundancy, the ability to be visible with all departments, and the gratification that comes by knowing the impact I'm having on sales and performance," he said. 

Author, and leadership and management expert Marcus Buckingham distilled 12 core issues to determine the strength of any work unit. Called the Q12, the Gallup-sponsored research asked 1,000 executives questions, such as "Do I know what is expected of me at work?" and "Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?" Based on the scores, a link between people and performance was made, and the results were vivid. The most engaged workplaces (those in the top 25 percent of Q12 scores) were 50 percent more likely to have lower turnover, 56 percent more likely to have higher-than-average customer loyalty, 38 percent more likely to have above-average productivity, and 27 percent more likely to report higher profitability. 

So how does Big Pharma perform against Q12? I'm sure employees all over the world ask themselves, "Do I matter at work?" When I was at Big Pharma, it was no different. In 2001, I led a team that came up with a methodology to analyze speaker program ROI. We were able to prove its effectiveness using actual data. However, the data embarrassed a particular director since it made him look incompetent. Instead of proceeding with the methodology, I received a "ding" on my review even though the data and analysis were accurate. Ironically, a portion of this methodology was implemented in 2004, when the company realized its value. Three years of improved productivity were lost due to politics. 

Another frustration at Big Pharma is the internal critics of the organization. It's the critic that dooms most winning ideas and initiatives before they get a fair hearing. I have read corporate papers in Big Pharma encouraging people to take risk, but the reality is everyone is afraid of failing. In an environment where critics prosper, taking risks may be a career-limiting move. The result is that innovation is slow and incomplete as managers concentrate on not rocking the boat instead of forward thinking. I witnessed a lot of creative thinking that received private approval, but once these ideas entered the public realm, the private supporters joined the critics and rarely spoke up in support.  

Chris Conely, a biotech consultant, has placed more than 145 candidates in biotech directly from pharma. "Big Pharma is not as safe as it used to be," she said. "There is no loyalty to their employees and if people are laid off, they are offered little to no severance. They are promised career advancement on hire only to find out they have to wait until senior management retires in order to pursue their dreams." 

Big Pharma understands the need to embrace a new way of thinking in the workplace. It needs to focus on recognition, compensation, and overall job satisfaction if it is going to be successful in this new era.  

It is a slow process, and it's up to the pharmaceutical industry to determine if it can make the changes fast enough to retain future leaders. Until then, biotech is here and growing—and always looking for new shining stars. 

 is associate director of sales and marketing operations with CV Therapeutics. He can be reached at 

Big Pharma now has a powerful competitor. If firms want to have a sporting chance in that war, they need to think about why biotech is so appealing.

The War for Talent

Every pharmaceutical company understands the importance of assessing their sales reps during initial training. The reason is simple: assessments allow a company to see how prepared their sales reps are to perform in the field. Although some best-in-class companies build continual assessment and development into their sales culture, many pharmaceutical companies do a poor job of assessing their sales reps beyond their initial training. Companies typically fall short in this area for three reasons: 					

They do not find the right mix of knowledge and selling-skills assessments to accurately evaluate individual competency over time. 

They don't define and maintain standards across a range of assessment types and assessors. 

They don't foster a culture of routinely evaluating reps' competencies. 

The solution to these problems is to create a long-term assessment continuum—a plan for testing and measuring sales reps' knowledge and practices throughout their careers, from their initial training to the day they leave the company. In that way, companies that implement this type of ongoing process take a step toward determining what additional training opportunities are needed to enhance rep performance.  

Implementing an assessment continuum can create a fundamental shift in the culture at companies. However, the objective is not to create a culture of fear or to look for ways to terminate employees. Instead, these evaluations enable sales managers at pharma companies to identify areas of proficiency and opportunities for improvement through a mix of knowledge and selling-skill development. In the long-term, it is that focus on constant learning that helps companies improve its reps' selling skills—and the bottom line—in the long term.  

If done effectively, this focus on continuous improvement can create a more dynamic exchange in the marketplace and improve reps' interaction with doctors—when they get the chance. Most reps only have a limited number of key opportunities to gain the time and attention of physicians and other healthcare professionals: when they are new to a specific territory, when the brands they promote receive a new indication, or when they are promoting a drug that was just launched. Unfortunately, poorly-prepared reps repeatedly squander these opportunities. 

Many pharmaceutical companies use online assessments to ensure sales representatives understand the material they are presenting to healthcare professionals. However, manufacturers often fall short of assessing whether reps can effectively articulate these messages to doctors. Usually, the only assessment of actual selling skills—and the effectiveness of that crucial rep-physician interaction—is conducted during initial training.  

That's not to say that many pharmaceutical companies don't use role playing, usually during plan of action (POA) meetings. However, these role plays are generally used to practice presenting, not as an opportunity to assess what reps may or may not know.  

An assessment continuum can help focus the efforts of pharmaceutical sales reps and their managers on enhancing product and disease knowledge and selling skills—and lets those employees know the company values those traits. This creates a culture in which assessment becomes a driver of reps' success—and the success of the entire enterprise.  

Creating an assessment continuum is an important step. But executing this plan is presents some issues to many pharmaceutical companies. To overcome implementation issues, it is first important to understand that an effective assessment continuum involves three important steps: 					

Using formal (i.e., in-house) training to lay the groundwork of an assessment continuum 

Effectively linking the assessment continuum to the efforts of the front-line sales manager

Ensuring that the cultural mantra is championed by sales management and integrated into field observation and recommendations. 

Typically, companies only conduct two meaningful evaluations of their reps' initial training experience—an online knowledge assessment at the end of home study and a video-taped selling skills assessment before reps enter the field. Incorporating more measurements of successful selling skills helps reps focus on these abilities and identify areas where additional training is needed.  

As reps finish home study, companies should take the time to assess their ability to verbalize their new knowledge.  Require reps to make a presentation that is evaluated by the rep's front-line manager and, if possible, by another person from the training department. 

Reps can use a generic selling model since they have not been trained in the company model yet. It should include the following components: 					

 The ability to craft an opening statement that generates interest in the product 

 The ability to present material clearly and concisely 

 The proper use of benefit statements to support the core messages delivered 

 The ability to push the "buyer" to a commitment to action. 

An evaluation based on this generic selling model can then be mapped to the company selling model so that trainers know the rep's baseline skills—and can identify proficiencies and areas for improvement—at the beginning of the in-house training.  

If this presentation is recorded, it can be compared with the final assessment at the end of the in-house training to show reps their progress. For reps, this type of feedback is extremely powerful because it allows them to see the distinct differences between their initial approach and the new approach they learned during training. 

Each day of reps' in-house training should include some type of assessed role play that allows them to incorporate what they learned into a presentation. Reps should also have the opportunity to observe other sales reps giving presentations. One effective way to parlay this peer-to-peer learning is to identify a top performer each day, videotape that representative demonstrating a component of the selling model, and show the recording to the other reps. This approach has the added benefit of associating assessments with positive, rather than negative, reinforcement. 

The evaluation form is a critical tool for any assessment. It should define and maintain consisten standards and be used throughout the assessment continuum. Currently, most pharma companies assess reps using an evaluation form with a three-point scale (i.e., Needs Improvement, Meets Expectations, Exceeds Expectations) or a five-point scale (i.e., Needs Improvement, Satisfactory, Meets Expectations, Exceeds Expectations, Outstanding). However, these forms can create problems because the criteria are not well-defined, leaving the choice of score up to the assessor. This makes reliable comparisons among reps very difficult because two different assessors can define "Exceeds Expectations" differently. 

Too many companies use five-point scales to evaluate reps without clearly defining the difference between scores. These companies often end up with scores that are essentially meaningless because evaluators (due to a lack of guidance) tend to give the majority of reps high score sregardless of the quality of the presentation. 

To avoid these issues, it is necessary to build a scale that clearly defines "good" and "bad." For example, let's say a company wants to ensure their reps can deliver  a brand's core messages, use visual aids to support it, and make certain that the customer understands the relevance of the communication. The assessment scale could look something like this: 					

Conveyed the core message and supported with available data

Conveyed the core message, supported with available data, and ensured that the data conveyed was relevant to the customer

The scale above is designed to give the assessor more information about where a rep's performance resides. Similar scales for each component of the selling model allow assessors to consistently evaluate reps and clearly explain where they are proficient and where they need improvement.  

All advanced training needs to link to the overall assessment continuum and include a formal evaluation, so that reps can apply the information they have learned. This not only helps measure the rep's knowledge level and selling ability, it is a good tool to measure the ability of their front-line managers to reinforce training with effective coaching. 

 Once reps leave in-house training, front-line managers, with some oversight from the training department, take over the responsibility to further develop them. Here, using an assessment continuum to link field training to in-house training  efforts through field coaching reports  helps instill the culture of continual evaluation into the organization. Common examples of such assessments include: 					

Front-line managers conduct role plays with their reps before going on sales calls to ensure that reps can articulate information and have a plan to handle likely concerns of customers. After the call, the manager can assess the performance and re-inforce lessons the reps learned during in-house training. By using the field-coaching report as an assessment tool, managers can show reps their progression or regression over time. These types of in-field assessment are most valuable if the field coaching report resembles the assessment forms used during in-house training.  

POAs can include well-designed role plays that address issues reps encounter in the field and assess rep skills and preparedness. Reps should be allowed to demonstrate their ability to use materials to address new (or ongoing) objections they might have. By allowing reps to observe and assess each other using the same evaluation form, they begin to understand exactly what their peers should be doing, which contributes to accurate self-assessment. 

Companies should also keep in mind that experience on the job does not eliminate the need for continued training. In fact, sales force assessment projects with multiple companies have revealed that: 					

Longer tenure is not associated with increased sales performance.  

A new, young rep from a competitive company often comes in and steals market share from an incumbent, tenured representative.  

Tenured reps often "fight" the sales model. Instead of working on their basic selling skills, they rely on relationships they have developed over the years to secure continued business. 

 Creating a culture that values assessment begins with initial training, but is solidified throughout the rep's tenure. Regardless of the efforts of the training department, the assessment continuum can only be successful with support from the pharma organization as a whole. As we saw in Step 2, front-line managers must instill the culture of assessment through field evaluations and coaching. However, front-line management will only enforce high expectations if senior management encourages them. In that way, senior sales executives' buy-in to the asessment process is crucial. Management must also provide front-line leaders and sales trainers with the resources needed to execute the assessment continuum. 

Most reps' best opportunities to gain a physician's time and attention come when they are new to a territory, or when the products they promote have a new indication.

No End to It

Here's an all-too-familiar story. A big pharmaceutical company decides to fund an initiative to develop women and minorities for sales management and other leadership positions. Over the next 12 months, regional managers design a series of exciting one-off conferences and workshops. And though everyone is thrilled with the individual programs, somehow, the company can't get the long-term national strategy off the ground: The plan looked promising, but the ongoing effort to implement changes stalls.  Women and minorities fail to get a boost up the career ladder, and in the process, the company wastes time and money. 

 Medical Sales LiaIsons: On the forefront of medical education			

Training executives need to make sure this scenario does not play out at their organizations. To prevent that from happening, pharma and biotech companies must align the development and planning stages with a long-term commitment to curriculum. Investing in materials, leadership training, executive presence, and outside partnerships is crucial to building a successful program. And executives had better learn the company's history of diversity programs to avoid repeating mistakes in the future.  

To make an impact with your training program, start at the top. Senior leaders can help put training and development initiatives on the corporate agenda, even if they don't have time to attend every new rollout or pilot program. This buy-in ensures that executives know what programs are included in the sales and leadership curriculum. Management needs to know what training is affecting people down the line, and how it should be applied to meet business goals. If executives are aware of what trainers are teaching employees, they can reinforce learning in casual conversations and other forums that test and reinforce staff members' new learning. 

Tracking changes in managed care training			

A pharma company leader recently demonstrated these skills when reviewing a new sales training pilot. He invited managers to interact with key company representatives—sales-analysis leaders, and sales-support and customer-marketing team members—so that they could understand the roles and responsibilities of the other departments. He worked with the trainer to create an agenda and previewed the content to become familiar with the information the sales reps would be covering the next day. His executive presence and leadership before, during, and after the pilot ensured successful evaluation for a program that was later used as a core curriculum for the sales organization. 

In addition to a host of other factors, executive buy-in is important to prevent needless duplication of efforts when it comes to creating training materials.   

For example: A couple of years ago, a major pharma company asked a training company to develop a workshop to spotlight the top-12 leaders in one of its key business areas. The training company focused a program on these key players and created a curriculum that would help the rest of the company learn directly from them. A year later, another division from the same company called the same training partner and requested a proposal for a custom-designed program with similar specifications. Clearly this second division was unaware that the company had purchased a similar program already. The training company informed the division leader that the company, in fact, already owned the same system, which could be used again. The division director was delighted she could save the company thousands of dollars, but wondered why she did not know that her company already ran a similar program.  

To avoid needless duplication of programs, executives need to ask how the training department's capital investments are allocated. Here are some starting points: 

 What happens to the purchase of custom training designs by various departments? 

 Is there a resource center for electronic training materials that maintains copies of all learning and program content paid for by the company? 

 How are these training and development resources leveraged for other internal end users to avoid creating similar programs again from scratch? 

 What stipulations does the legal department require of custom-designed products? How are the final custom program content and materials delivered to the corporation? 

In many progressive organizations, the chief learning officer is responsible for integrating the learning and development resources into the corporate culture. Because the problem with custom-program duplication is not just a problem within company divisions—it can create issues for the whole company as well—a centralized approach may be the answer for many organizations.  

One medium-sized healthcare association wanted to expand operations after 20 years to include regional franchises. The expansion proved to be difficult for the organization, mostly because its operational systems had never been put onto templates and dispersed. Since the vendor retained ownership of the programs, inconsistent practices created problems across the company's new franchises. 

Executives need to ask questions about the prior development of systems, marketing materials, and learning resources. Can they be used in the future and transferred to others within the organization? This will not only ensure an accurate transfer of knowledge, but also reduce redundant capital expenditures on customized work. 

To reduce instability in the sales training department, companies need to concentrate on hiring a core group of trainers who will stay long enough to build relationships with internal groups. Too often, highly ambitious individuals come through training's revolving door only to be pushed into becoming the next product manager, district manager, or managed-care manager within one or two years. While trainers are typically delighted to be moving forward so rapidly in their career, it erodes the bonds sales reps form with their trainers. Consequently, career mentoring and motivation are lost. 

A core group of trainers will add consistency to a company and forge stronger relationships with the sales reps. These trainers should come with significant experience, including facilitation and management know-how, and provide an anchor in a department that would have a revolving door otherwise.  

Once a core group of trainers has been selected, a company needs to determine how well the trainers are trained. Just because senior management "knights" a person as a trainer doesn't mean they're capable of teaching a team of sales reps. The trainer title shouldn't be the only verification of competence within the first few months on the new job. So, the company needs to test their competence quotient (CQ). 

The best training departments design a rigorous curriculum that grooms their trainers for skills they will need later when they are assigned to other roles they will hold later within the company. Training curriculums should include ways for trainers to: 					

organize the involvement of speakers and internal leaders

communicate the business case of curriculum content and application.

Effectively communicating these points to trainers will help them prepare to train your company's sales force. 

Training in today's environment is so different than years past. So while it's important for the industry to stay abreast of the latest tactics and methods, it's also important to realize what works best for your company.

In the late 1990s, e-learning was all the buzz for companies who wanted to minimize the time their employees spent in the classroom. Pharmaceutical companies thought online training tools would reduce travel expenses, keep reps in the field, and enable them to learn at their own pace. It should have been a win-win situation. However, e-learning did not replace classroom training as the preferred learning medium. Many pharma trainers now realize that face-to-face interactions, and the "a-ha!" moments they bring, are hard to replace. True experiential learning happens when sales reps are connected with each other in the rich environment found in classroom training.

"E-learning is obsolete," says Jeff Snipes, CEO and founder of San Francisco-based Ninth House Network. "[At first,] the biggest trends were for employees to build programs online for customers. Although the preferred model is for participants to take sessions online, they would rather do an application session live in a classroom with other learners. Learners like to be reinforced in their knowledge. Therefore, using a variety of training styles and mediums creates the most effective behavioral change and long-term result."

In addition to supplementary teaching tools, most top pharma training departments call on outside partners for additional support. These external partners can provide outsourced program development, a faculty with specific training expertise, and help meet unrealistic timelines for product launches that just can't be handled with in-house staff members. 

When looking for strong training partners, executives should look for companies that know the company and its culture, understand the core areas of the business, and have a well-established track record of performance. With these characteristics, outsourced partners can take on the role of a personal coach, and can augment the personal development that many employees feel are lacking in the fast-paced, high-pressure pharmaceutical environment.  

Scott Blanchard, chief operating officer of Ken Blanchard & Co., describes how his customers thrive on using a pool of coaches outside the company that reinforce the training of their direct supervisors.  

"Personal coaches are more cost effective than ever," says Blanchard.  "When a manager has someone other than the boss to turn to, someone endorsed and trusted by the company who holds the conversation in confidence, that is highly prized by employees." Many external training partners now provide coaching services on the phone and online, in addition to the traditional in-person approach. 

Pharmaceutical companies realize that training initiatives are most effective with executive buy-in, stable leaders, and outside vendor partnerships. These initiatives reap the greatest benefits in terms of high retention. Falling down in one of these areas puts the entire training program at risk—just as the failure to push through an intended curriculum results in wasted time, energy, and money. And that's important because it's not only the sales representatives and trainers that lose out, but in the long-term, the company is hurt as well. 

 is CEO of Unlimited Performance Training. She can be reached at 

To avoid duplication of programs, executives need to ask the training department how its capital investments are being allocated.

Pharmaceutical Executive-04-01-2006

The New Customer: Your Workforce

The War for Talent

No End to It

Burried Treasure