Targeted Talent Management Systems: An Investment or an Expense?

Yes, there is a cost involved in hiring experts to create a targeted talent management strategy that is brought to life by tools and systems that focus on the critical skills and behaviors necessary for success.  It is interesting to me, how some people view certain spending as an expense whereas others will view it as an investment.

I would say that creating an organization specific talent management system is an investment, but I am biased because I have seen the value that it provides.   I would say that it costs more to not know if you have the right talent management process in place.  This rings true now more than ever.  Most companies are trying to achieve the same, or even greater results, with fewer people.  If you are trying to get more out of less, you better have the “right” people on board or it will never work.

That is why it is worth the investment to discover what skills and behaviors are necessary for success in your organization.  While others might try to “wing it” and end up replacing people that aren’t the right “fit”, you can significantly increase business results by having the “right” people.  On average, studies show that a new hire who doesn’t work out will cost you at least $60,000.  That doesn’t even take into account the possible business that you might have lost due to having the wrong person in the role.

At the end of the day, every company has to decide whether they want to invest in a targeted talent management system or whether they feel that it costs too much.  I would choose to invest, because it leads to greater business results and organizational efficiency.  Having a targeted talent management system is like having a great GPS system to hire and develop the best people.  With it, you can find exactly what you are looking for… without it, you may or may not find the “right” person.

Behavioral Assessment Tools: Fun, Not Fearful

It’s been our experience that, initially, some folks are a bit hesitant or afraid to take a personality assessment.  Their primary concern is usually worrying about how they will “look” to their boss, or prospective employer.  However, it’s also been my experience that once I have an opportunity to talk with these individuals, their perception turns from suspicious and fearful, to viewing the tool as valuable and fun.  It’s fun for team members to share their results with each other, with their manager, and even with their family!  It’s also fun for me, talking to our clients and helping them to better understand not only themselves, but to show them how to “diagnose” what makes others “tick” as well.

I often have people tell me that the results are “scary”, “spooky”, “spot on”…some also wonder who in their family I’ve been talking to!  Certainly, our assessment, the ECI Behavioral Insight® not only helps our clients to increase employee productivity and reduce turnover, it is also a valuable tool to team building, coaching, and personal development.  Personally, being a service-motivated individual, I like talking to people about their assessment results, helping them to understand not only what drives their own behavior, but also giving them insight into how to meet their “opposite style” halfway.  For example, it’s fun to hear the “light bulb go on” in a manager’s voice as they relay a story about themselves working with a particular staff member and that they can now pinpoint where the style difference is likely occurring, and how they can change their approach with the individual moving forward.

Remember, when looking at or talking about someone’s personality, there is no “good” or “bad”, we’re simply looking at differences in styles.  Understanding your personality style preferences, and how you relate to others whose style is similar and different from your own, will strengthen your relationships, enhance skills, and increase confidence.

ECI’s Foundation Study v. Google’s Project Oxygen to Identify High Performers

One of our associates passed along this New York Times article about Google’s Project Oxygen to me earlier this week.  Google wanted to identify the factors associated with high performing managers.   Being the experts they are with data analysis, they sliced and diced all of their performance review ratings and other anecdotal information to identify the behaviors that are unique to their best managers. They were surprised to find that technical skills are not what enables good managers to make the list.

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.

Are Pharmaceutical Reps Exempt or Non-Exempt?

A recent article in the news described the court case at Novartis where sales representatives were pressing for overtime, given the structure of their accountabilities.  This has been a topic we have reviewed a number of times for our clients and which rarely lands on the same recommendation.  Pharma companies generally pay on business results – marketshare,  marketshare change and sometimes number of scripts.  The job itself of the sales rep historically has been one of narrowly defined accountabilities, which are often assessed by reach and frequency metrics.

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.

Finding Your Personal Leadership Style

I am often asked if there is a specific personality style that someone needs to have in order to be a successful leader.  I often answer this question by saying yes and no.  I have seen trends that suggest that certain personality types are more successful leaders, but then you always find people that don’t “fit the mold” and are highly successful.  This brings us back to the question of whether great leaders are born that way or whether you can develop skills necessary to become a successful leader.  I think that some people are born with natural leadership tendencies, but that the people who aren’t can learn how to master those skills.

In order to understand your own natural style, you should take a personality assessment.  I would not suggest using a style inventory like the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, MBTI or the DISC profile, because these assessments only give you an overall style of your personality.  I suggest taking a trait based assessment like the ECI Behavioral Insight®, which allows you to understand individual traits and why you have certain behavioral preferences.  This is where you really discover your personal style.  Once you recognize your personal or leadership style, then you can work on developing the factors that can drive success in leadership roles.

Using your personality results you can work on your areas that you feel are holding you back from being a better leader. Maybe you need to work on your communication style, decision making or organization skills.  I suggest working on only a few skills a year and focusing on one strength as well as one of your weaknesses or developmental opportunities.

Would you like to learn more about Leadership Development or try the ECI Behavioral Insight®? If so, email us today!

Happy New Year!

We hope that you had a great Holiday Season and Happy New Year!

Please let us know if there are any topics that you would like us to discuss on our blog this year.  Feel free to email us at info@employerconsultancy.com .   Be sure to include ECI Blog in the subject line.

Performance Review Time

It’s the most wonderful time of the year.  I’m not talking about the Holidays, I’m talking about Performance Review Time!!!  In our work, we have seen the good, the bad and the ugly of performance reviews.  I think the toughest thing about performance reviews is that it is an objective look at what someone did during the year.  For certain jobs, where there are not clear metrics to measure whether an individual has been successful or not, it is increasingly difficult.

The easiest way to go through performance reviews is to look at your “the highest performer” and “least effective performer” people.  Give the highest performing person the highest rating that you believe they deserve, while giving the least effective person the lowest rating that they deserve.  Notice that I did not say the highest or the lowest rating, but the highest or lowest rating that the person deserves.  Next you should rank the rest of your staff and rate them based on their performance according to how they performed.  This is a good way to be as objective as possible, while not being distracted based on your personal feelings toward any individuals.

What is the criteria upon which you will evaluate people?  Is it quality of work?  Is it impact on the organziation’s success?  Is it ability to develop performers or to cross train a team?  Determine the criteria first, before you begin to determine who is the highest and least effective performer in the organization.

Also, we think that the job during performance reviews is to bring some objective information into the process to make the process more objective, rather than subjective as it is in many companies.

Add your ideas here, and see what other ideas people are using!

The Stay Survey

I just saw a great presentation the other day on how to increase employee engagement and productivity.  One points that I took away from this presentation was the idea of a “Stay Interview”.  Most companies have an exit interview process that tries to understand why an employee is leaving the company.  I know many companies take the time to conduct these interviews, but I’m not sure how many organization actually use this information.

 

The premise of a “Stay interview”  is interesting, because it could help an organization to understand why people stay with their company.  This information could be used in many ways.  First, it could be used as a recruiting tool, to attract top talent, by telling them what current employees say about the role and/or company.  Next, it could be used to see which benefits your employees love and which ones aren’t as useful.  Finally, the information can be used to improve efficiency with in the position, by asking employees for their ideas to increase productivity.

 

Any way you look at the “Stay Interview” it makes sense for a business to try it.  It could have a dramatic effect on an organization, while being cost-effective and easy to use.  Here at ECI, we could actually take the “Stay interview” and put it into a survey  that employees take electronically.  Then we could use performance data to compare the responses of Top Performer against other performance groups to see what your best employee’s really value and how that compares to the others.

 

If you would like to learn more about ECI’s survey options please contact us!

Understanding Competency Models

Competency Models form the foundation of all Talent Management systems.  They describe the skills, knowledge and abilities typically exhibited by successful performers and formulate a clear reference point from which to hire, manage and develop staff.

For example, competencies serve as a benchmark in assessing an individual’s mastery of the key factors essential for success in a role.  In developmental planning, they serve as a benchmark to determine areas of strength and developmental opportunities.  In the job description, they are referenced to describe how the individual is to deliver the desired outcomes.

Competencies enable organizations to establish a consistent lexicon of language that aligns all talent management processes.  By having a common foundation of behaviors, people gain a clearer understanding of the path to success.

What is a Competency Model?

Competency Models form the foundation for all people systems.  They describe the behaviors typically exhibited by successful performers and formulate a clear reference from which to hire, manage and develop staff.

For example, competencies serve as a benchmark in assessing an individual’s mastery of the skills, knowledge and abilities needed for success in a role.  In developmental planning, they serve as a benchmark to determine areas of strength and developmental opportunities.  In the job description, they are referenced to describe how the individual is to deliver the desired accountabilities.

Competencies enable organizations to establish a consistent lexicon of language that aligns all talent management processes.  By having a common foundation of behaviors, people gain a clearer understanding of the path to success.

A competency model’s structure is determined by a number of factors, including an organization’s maturation level, current and future business conditions and the corporate culture.  Regardless of the design, however, competency systems must be targeted, easy to understand, and east to apply in practice.

The last thing your organization needs after the time and money spend on building a competency system is a slick binder that simply sits on the shelf and collects dust!

To learn more about ECI’s approach to Competencies click here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.