I liked this article because it more or less confirms what we have been doing in our research for the past 15 years.  Our business, ECI, founded in 1996, is built upon the identification of high performance behaviors in a variety of environments and roles using statistical analysis of performance metrics. Like Google, we have found that this type of data analysis yields a valid and reliable formulation of the root cause for success.

But since we have been focusing all of our attention on identifying high performance behaviors within organizations, here are our best practices that Google’s analysts might want to consider on the next round of Oxygen studies:

1. It is not sufficient to screen for key words in performance reviews and anecdotal information. While that practice might put you in the ballpark, it won’t get you to your seat. There is too much variance and inconsistency in prose type performance reviews. If you really study a block of performance reviews, you find that most managers are not appropriately trained in giving objective, actionable feedback, nor are they consistently assigning ratings to performers.  This inconsistency of ratings across the review process skews the data.
2. Use force rank against a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale to identify quartiles of performance for your overall population.  The overall ratings assigned in the standard performance review process cannot be relied upon to indicate who is the better manager. In our studies, we find that in 60% of companies, ratings are assigned for some other purpose than to evaluate actual performance levels. These include attempting to norm a population to a bell curve for compensation purposes, feeling that someone deserves a raise and having to justify this with the performance rating, and favoritism by the manager for the most politically savvy performers on the team.
3. Use multiple measures to confirm or overturn the presence of key high performance behaviors.  ECI’s rule is that if you identify a factor in one segment of the study, you must verify its presence in another segment in order to consider it applicable to the model.
4. Use valid and reliable metrics, such as indices, personality assessments, and other proven tools to identify core performance behaviors and behavioral preferences. If you incorporate a couple valid and reliable metrics in the study process, you can statistically compare the findings from these more rigorous tools to the less objective sources of data in your study to know with good certainty that you have proven a relationship to the high performance behaviors/factors you identify.
5. Make sure you include results from job analysis within your study process.  By observing the work in context, using a standardized interview form designed to assess the work environment, and identifying differentiating performance factors using this process, the criteria you establish should  pass the muster of the EEOC, if you decide to use this model for selection or promotional purposes.
6. Use professional statistical tools, such as SPSS, to confirm the validity around your model. When you put people into a room and say “does this look right to you?” or “how would you modify this finding?”, the only thing you are verifying is face validity. That is insufficient, in my estimation, to devise a management development program or another talent management process. You need the numbers to prove your model. Hopefully, the standard you achieve is at least a correlation significance of .70 against the ratings you used to identify your high performing population.
7. Don’t forget to look at the entire population, not just the high performing group. If you only study the top performers, you don’t know if the factor you identified is present for everyone in the group or only high performers possess it. In our studies, for example, we find that all sales people within a large sales force have good self-confidence, can withstand rejection and are motivated to persuade others. While these factors are critical to selling success, the only thing we can say with certainty is that the original screening process used to hire the sales force is doing a good job of identifying these factors. These are the rudimentary factors associated with all successful sales forces; they are essential, but they do not help us to identify the additional factors needed for success in a specific company culture, marketplace or customer group. The unique factors are those that drive exceptional results, lower turnover, and higher job satisfaction.

Google did recognize that generalized industry principles and recommendations are not good enough to really drive their organization’s unique high performing manager behaviors. I commend them for that perspective. I would love to take a look at their data and make a couple of recommendations on how they might enhance the validity and reliability of their study process, however. That would surely be a wonderful conversation.

In those cases, the department of labor and the courts have an easy time classifying a role as non-exempt in status.  The rep is required to make an average 7 – 9 customer visits per day, to deliver two or more key product messages when the opportunity arises to speak with a physician or other professional, and then must ensure that sufficient samples are available for the prescriber to dole out product, based on patient needs.  Because of the heavy focus on measured tasking (even though it is difficult to directly link the use of the product to the message delivered by the rep), the job assessor tends to say that very little is left to the rep’s own choice and that the job is pretty clearly defined in the various systems used to monitor performance.  When the job is clearly defined and leaves little to the choice of the performer, then it is classified as a non-exempt position.  There are a lot more standards that are applied to make this classification, but at the end of the day, freedom of choice on what is done and levels of decision making are at the root of the classification.

Enter the legal department at the pharma company.  In the last couple of years, there has been a strong push in job descriptions to place language around independently developing strategy, establishing priorities for the territory in terms of selling activities, and establishing one’s own daily schedule.  Using the word professional to elevate the role of rep to business “owner”  who is accountable to develop key contacts and manage a broad range of relationships has been an attempt to elevate the expectations of the role.  Somehow, these added wordings don’t quite do enough to elevate the role to the exempt level, however.  The accountabilities are still the same – see the docs, deliver the message, influence drug of choice, and leverage the relationship to access other medical providers.

What is interesting to me is the fact that with the rapidly changing landscape of the healthcare environment, the addition of so much more complexity in healthcare providers, formulary positioning, specialty pharmacies, large IDNs, care provider networks and institutions has made the job of sales rep much more difficult.  Reps have to know the clinical and treatment aspects of their products better than most physicians.  They need to understand how to help the doctor use the product with patients whose access to the drug is limited by their medical coverage or geographic location and care networks.   I doubt that the old reach and frequency model would even work effectively today in many of these situations, outside of some less sophisticated marketplaces that are not as heavily impacted by managed care practices.

A new customer development model that has emerged requires the representative to assess all of the local conditions and to devise a strategy that best addresses these conditions, while aligning to company goals, the compliance and regulatory environment, and physician preferences.  This hardly looks like a non-exempt position when you increase the complexity of the work to this level and note the amount of variation in responsibilities and approach that will is needed to perform the role properly.  Given the amount of technical clinical knowledge needed, the in-depth strategy setting and innovation required to succeed and then the amount of collaboration and networking expected, measuring success is not a simple matter of measuring number of calls, delivering the approved marketing messages, and devising the most efficiency call route.

In recent visits to the field with our client’s reps, we have seen reps changing the treatment preferences of surgeons, helping to gain approval for treatment for non-formulary drugs by establishing pre-approval systems in physician offices, and a much higher presence of medical science liaisons providing targeted messaging to pave the way for treatment protocols into the future.  The level of work being done today, which is surely indicative of the future requirements of the position, is more consultative than it is selling work.  The further the role moves in the direction of consulting, where expertise and counsel are the primary services or products provided to customers, the more difficult it will be to classify rep jobs as non-exempt.

Interesting that this case was settled in the current marketplace in the manner that it was.  Pharma companies are going to need to redefine the rep’s accountabilities, given all the complexity their people are facing today, and to reposition the rep’s defined efforts from purveyors of product to business consultants.   And those reach and frequency models will need to fall by the wayside, too, since they really do not apply to what most high level sales reps are doing today.

I believe this is an indicator of more change coming in the pharmaceutical industry. We will be seeing different sales models, new ways of getting information out to the medical community, and providing value added processes to help offices gain access to treatments for patients.

As a caveat, I personally believe that the US government should allow people to collect a paycheck in a job and augment that with partial unemployment payments to yield a higher, livable wage, to encourage people to get working again.  Most of the entrepreneurs in the job market have taken a couple of part-time or full time minimum wage jobs to yield the same results.  To my mind, I would rather see 2 people working, rather than one person trying to make ends meet by working a 16-hour day.

Further, it is not a good practice to have someone say “I make more on unemployment than I would if I worked,” and thereby cut out the incentive to find a job.  All this does is encourage long-term collection of unemployment benefits and fails to get money into people’s hands so that they can start spending again.  Remember Ted’s perspective on the consumer spending economy?

Let’s talk about how to position yourself to find a meaningful job, hopefully better than 2 part-time or full-time filler jobs.  Even if you are applying for an hourly position, you should put your resume together.  This is a handy document to reference if you are required to fill out an application, since all the information is right there on a sheet of paper.  Also, it makes a great impression on your potential employer when you bring along your resume.

So, to put your best foot forward, take some time to visit MS Office on the web and download a resume template that suits your style.  Accurately fill in the blanks with your education, background, prior work experience and job objectives.  DO NOT go over 2 pages in explaining what you have done on your resume.

Also, I recommend that you include only the last 10 years of experience and work information by employer.  If your experience is older than 10 years, you probably are not prepared to qualify for your old job today.  If you want to include this information, under your last employer bullet on the resume, put a general statement, such as this one for an engineer  “prior employment – experience in leading an engineering team in process improvement, experience managing rolling process team in a manufacturing environment, experience in retail sales.”

1. Proof read and spell check your resume.  Use clean paper and do not have any white-outs or erasures.  Do not prepare your resume as you eat your lunch and spill food on it.  All of these things get your resume pushed to the bottom of the circular file.
2. Your resume is your first impression to your future employer.  In the job objective section, tell why you think you would be a good prospect for the employer.  What are the contributions you will bring to the employer? A couple good sentences are all you need.  It’s not about you…it’s about them…
3. In searching for companies to submit your nice new resume to, identify key words that appear in their description of the job, particularly as it relates to qualifications.  Be sure to incorporate those key words within your resume, since most companies use key word searches to pick out resumes from the thousands they receive.
4. Search for jobs that you qualify for.  This doesn’t mean you have to get a job like the one you used to have at all.  It just means that you need to be able to qualify for the position, based on your past experiences and educational background.  If the job posting says 4-year degree required and you don’t have a 4-year degree, submitting your resume will most likely get you screened out immediately.  Apply for the jobs in which the background and requirements match your qualifications.  With all the new legislation surrounding the internet tracking of candidates, companies today shouldn’t be considering candidates who do not meet their posted job requirements.
5. Be open minded.  The world is changing and things aren’t like they used to be. Unless you are engaged in a job where there are plenty of openings, think outside the box by going to various job search sites and putting in critical skills you have and searching that way, rather than by job title.  Then read all about these available jobs and apply for those that interest you.
6. Attend training or skills improvement classes.  By showing that you are actively preparing for a new role, your employer will see that you have the initiative they just might value in a new employee.

Next time, let’s talk about the interview process.  I’ll share some good advice on how to present yourself to make a good, positive and memorable impression on your potential employer.

One problem she faced was having to manage a large number of hourly workers.  These people were handling a lot of transactions each day, were responsible for entering complex data accurately, and had to answer a lot of inquiries to move transactions through the process.  Unfortunately, they were also stressed out and had many items on their agendas, some typical to a traditional hourly workforce.  The vast majority of her team members were women who were single heads of households trying to make ends meet while juggling children, elderly parents or other problems that faced them.  For many, work provided the only stable environment in their lives.

She learned early on that the best thing she could do for the team was to establish a fair set of rules and guidelines for work and to ensure that these were followed consistently for everyone on the team.   Within her team, she had a number of supervisory staff, many of whom had worked their way up to their positions through their own hard work and through promotion.   In her mind, it wasn’t the hourly staff who caused the majority of the issues, but rather the way in which some of the supervisors handled the problems.

Favoritism, giving a break once and having the break expected every time, not having the courage to take action when a problem first began, and ignoring some issues all were actions that caused workers to become problems.  I certainly am not saying that the majority of issues arose from the supervisory staff, but had the supervisors followed the rules consistently and applied them fairly, many of the people who became problem employees would have been reformed or gone before becoming problem employees.

People become very resentful of problem employees, even though as a leader, you probably aren’t hearing much from anybody.  The impact of the problem employee is often far-reaching.  Other team members end up taking messages and answering phones, picking up the slack for their troubled worker partner, and generally feeling as if they are being used by the organization.  And the impacted team members are unlikely to speak up, since that might make them appear as if they are complaining.

Once the problem worker is gone, however, there is often a sigh of relief.  the hidden impact of problem workers can be significant.  Since it is a new year, it might be a good time to discuss how supervisors are handling people with problems.  Your remaining team members will be grateful.

Our French Canadians were quick to point out that the process has to be completed in French and that documentation needed to be placed in the personnel files in French.  Apparently psychological assessment has been used for quite some time in Canada and is not viewed as particularly earth shattering. Both of the individuals were government employees who resided in Quebec. 

Apparently, and this is certainly not documented from my own research, the problem in Canada is that while there is some rigor/regulation required during the hiring process, more significant issues are related to dismissal procedures, mostly related to the fact that a very liberal definition has been attached to stress leave.  Once an employee goes out on stress leave, the company is quite limited in its ability to dismiss the employee or to replace the position.

Our Spanish dinner partners discussed the issues around gathering personal information and avoiding the use of any tools that would disclose personal information about someone.   They were appalled that someone would suggest inserting a psychological profile within the selection process, since this seemed to violate personal space.

And our German dinner partners didn’t seem to be too concerned about hiring processes.  This could either have been because they didn’t know much about hiring people or because the system in Germany again is different from other locations.  They seemed to think that being able to gather personality traits and personal styles information would greatly enhance the ability to place the right person in the right job.  They were not, however, familiar with the use of testing in the selection process and wondered if we provided our tool in German.  We don’t as yet.

As the world gets smaller and we find ourselves in business interactions with companies in countries around the world, all of us will need to upgrade our knowledge in this area, particularly if we expect to remain competitive.  It never gets more simple, does it?