GSK has announced that it is no longer paying bonuses to reps based on individual sales targets but I've not seen details of exactly how it is going to incentivise them.
Do people think this will work and what schemes are they likely to use instead for bonuses?
According to what I have read, is is going to be based on customer feedback, which sounds very woolly to me, not sure how they are going to do that.
A rep could be very "popular" without doing a great job of selling drugs.
I support GSK's move, as far as I know they are not switching completely away from sales being a leading factor in incentive payments. When we look to other industries, customer satisfaction has long been a key part of variable compensation - automotive sales being a key example.
A brave move by GSK to understand that in the new multi stakeholder world, having a strong relationship with their key stakeholders drives prescriptions.
I guess the devil is in the detail, conceptually seeking customer feedback which is honest against a defined structure is a great idea and is a valuable performance measurement tool - but can be costly, and if there are multiple people calling on the same individual - confusing. It would be great to learn more.
What exactly is 'customer satisfaction' on this level? For a prescribing doctor, which aspect of their working or personal life is most satisfied by their interaction with a drug rep? A doctor knows precisely how important it is to the rep that they prescribe the drug in question, but they aren't 'buying' the drug themselves, and they certainly aren't 'buying' the services of the drug rep.
Maybe they should do a customer satisfaction survey of patients instead...
Interesting debate this and I agree there are real challenges in measuring "customer satisfaction" in this circumstance. I suspect a GP is most "satisfied" when they get the right information they need about the drug presented in an unbiased format and with minimum of fuss, something which is always going to slightly at odds to a sales rep who is trying to build rapport and position their drug in the most favourable light.
Paul said
I suspect a GP is most "satisfied" when they get the right information they need about the drug presented in an unbiased format
That will be the product label then!
:?
Customer satisfaction. Oh dear. GPs themselves worry enough about their own actions and performance and revalidation and guidelines and so on. Managers might just like to rejoice in the comparative freedom for the reps in their ability to share knowledge and build relationships. Isn't it enough to interview them thoroughly, review them in interview appraisals thoroughly, train them rigorously, review the materials and objectives honestly - and watch the success?? Do reps really need to be appearing to GPs like all they're doing is asking - just because they have to and it will get a survey tick - whether they have a Nectar Card?!
You know what. I'm not sure even GSK know how they're going to incentivise their reps.
Sounds like a great idea in principle but I'll be watching this one with interest....
GSK discussed the idea of customer feedback as a measure many, many years ago. I don't know whether it was ever incorporated at the time but it's interesting this has surfaced again.
I recall at the time that HR was driving a shift away from individual measures. Their objective was sound enough, they wanted to encourage better team work, cross-functional collaboration. And that's fine - I've no issue with that at all - I think it's really important. But if you take away individual measures, on outputs, you take away accountability and you end up measuring inputs instead.
GSK are a smart organization though and I'm sure they will not make the same mistakes as they did in the 1990's when they abandoned individual sales measures and focused on inputs rather than outputs resulting in a soft -inefficient organization that was blissfully comfy for poor performers.
You must be logged in to post a reply.