Why are there so many managers?

Discussion in 'GlaxoSmithKline' started by anonymous, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:24 AM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Why? To manage a team of 6-7? And make at least $120k plus they have generous stock options. They all micro-manage to justify their job, add barriers to limit our performance in the field, and annoy our customers with their constant ride alongs. Every pharma company has one manager for 12-14 reps and we used to do the same. What happened?????
     

  2. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Agreed. Especially now with sales excellence coaches! Next year we will be working with them more so it's like having 2 managers. Great. Excellent use of resources.
     
  3. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Hey, if two are good then three are better !
     
  4. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    I'm not at GSK but it's this way everywhere. We have 2 day field rides every 3 weeks. It's ridiculous, and a waste of $.
     
  5. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    They have to have multiple backup redundancy to compensate for their fecklessness...and to provide words of comfort and encouraging-empowerment, like:

    "As you casually, yet feverishly, suck your way through the grimy hobodick in our mens room, remember: save room for a pumpkin cheesecake shake. Feel Proud!"
     
  6. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Gotta keep the system up dude
     
  7. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    LOL!
     
  8. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    It is the only way to make lazy reps like you work a full day.
     
  9. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    This may be true, as the company doesn't have the brains or balls to fire him/her.
     
  10. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Oh yes they do fire reps !
     
  11. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    how would my expense report ever get approved? Also who would remind me that it's been two months since I've done an expense report. I think we need expense report excellence coaches.
     
  12. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Only for the most profligate abuses. Reps are still incentivized to fake call-frequency metrics, and next months "calibrated rankings" will be further proof that this is alive and well.
     
  13. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    if you don't already know, they build a case first, over weeks and sometimes months so firing you will be a no-brainer !
     
  14. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Mines doesn't remind us about getting expenses done but he sure as hell will get in us for low NBRx. The company could stand to slim down on managers.
     
  15. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Dats right.....mines been done dat same thing to !
     
  16. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Managers need to be cut by 30%. Most of their work can be automated..think about it. GPS tracks reps throughout the day. Call entry logs call activity. Reps do their own analysis. Now sales excellence coaches offer guidance. Why do we need so many TSMs? They could easily manage 15 to 20 reps per district. As it stands now, we have mangers with only 5 reps in a district. What a joke!
     
  17. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    I disagree. They should double the number of managers and double the ridealongs to weed out the poor performing reps. High performers should be rewarded with 14 day Hawaiian vacation, family included
     
  18. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    That would be great! I was top seller last month and my manager gave me 5 dollar off coupons to Olive Garden. What a cheap jerk.
     
  19. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Managers sold their souls when they took the job! They do as they are told and never push back. That is a part of the GSK culture. That is a big part as to why we are in the state we are in. Not one of them has a spine and most lack a moral compass. They lie on a daily basis and don't think twice. ..."and I am GSK".
     
  20. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    This seems to be a big part of the problem. My former FLL pushed back some, and she paid the price. The replacement never has, never will.