layoff criteria

Quote

Anonymous

Guest
What do you think the criteria will be for layoffs. Also, do you think DSM's/RSD's have any input as to what will happen.

product mix you sell
ethnicity
mgr rankings
coe rankings
geography
reviews
 
















DSM rankings are 100 % subjective. It's an easy tool for a DSM to use to favor one rep over another without regards to ability. Forced ranking systems have been successfully challenged in court. It's a terrible way to determine a person's future.
 












You will never find out the layoff criteria. HR and the high priced lawyers get together to decide the criteria to keep the companies exposure to lawsuits at a minimum. ZS associates or some other consultant group places all the criteria in a mix and the computer spits out names. DM ranking may be one of the criteria. Geography to territory allignment will be a criteria. Last two or three years of end of year rating probably will be a criteria. You are currently on a PIP....then that will be a criteria. A lot of good people will be gone and it will not seem "fair." However the $200,000 a year lawyers will keep the company exposure to a lawsuit at a minimum and that is the over riding principle. Good luck to us all.
 




There may be other criteria but your district rank has a heckuva lot to do with where you stand. Three tiers. Top, middle, and bottom. Are you in good standing? This is a term managers use a lot. Obviously the bottom person is not.
 




Anonymous said:
There may be other criteria but your district rank has a heckuva lot to do with where you stand. Three tiers. Top, middle, and bottom. Are you in good standing? This is a term managers use a lot. Obviously the bottom person is not.
Click to expand...
The irony in all of this is that many of the people RSDs, DSMs that are doing this ranking will be let go as well. That is why the lawyers will not allow rankings to be the number one criteria since someone they have ranked at the bottom in performance is making the rankings for their team. Get it?
 








Anonymous said:
The irony in all of this is that many of the people RSDs, DSMs that are doing this ranking will be let go as well. That is why the lawyers will not allow rankings to be the number one criteria since someone they have ranked at the bottom in performance is making the rankings for their team. Get it?
Click to expand...

No. I don't get it. How do you figure lawyers will not allow ranking to be number one? It clearly has been in the past and so much emphasis is placed on it still. I've been through this twice and although other criteria was noted, it was explained that rank was essentially the primary component when RSD's and DSM's had their "discussions." HR made "recommendations," but managers still made the key decisions. It kept a position but had to drive farther than someone who lived in the territory because I was ranked higher. Several of my counterparts were in the same situation. Get it?
 




Anonymous said:
So, Here is a question: how will the third party company decide between Therapeutic Areas and the individual rankings within the different districts??
Click to expand...

First they will decide the structure of the sales force. For example will there continue to be a MCR, MCL, CVAS, etc. or will they be combined in some way. Then they will decide on the overall size of the sales force or sales forces, based on how big a territory they project each rep to cover.

Then it will come down to the local level with territory lines being drawn. The most important factors in who stays and who goes will be ranking and geography. They will seek to keep as many top ranked people as possible, regardless of current sales force. They are not going to let an entire sales force, like CNS, go. They will not keep a low ranked MCR rep at the expense of letting a high ranked CNS rep go. They will decide it makes better business sense to retrain the higher ranked rep. The low ranked rep is ranked low for a reason (yeah, yeah, I know, your DSM doesn't like you. Tough luck).


Next they will match up the people they want to keep with the geography they have to cover. If you are a top ranked rep currently covering a territory that will be there in the new alignment, you're all set. If you are a top ranked rep in a territiory with a low ranked rep, the top ranked rep will stay. If you are in a territory with another top ranked rep, they will seek to move one of you to another nearby territory that has a low ranked rep, or to another TA with a territory with a low ranked rep.

As you can see, it all comes down to rankings. Sorry to break the news, but in this game somebody has been keeping score and you don't get a trophy just for participating.
 




It will NOT all come down to rankings. Rankings will be part of it. It will come down to lawyer's criteria that will minimize company exposure to lawsuits. Plain and simple. You can speculate all day what the criteria will be. Nobody will reveal what it is. Smart people will be prepared with a plan. The Kool Aid drinkers will be hurt the worst. Not fun times my brothers and sisters.



Anonymous said:
First they will decide the structure of the sales force. For example will there continue to be a MCR, MCL, CVAS, etc. or will they be combined in some way. Then they will decide on the overall size of the sales force or sales forces, based on how big a territory they project each rep to cover.

Then it will come down to the local level with territory lines being drawn. The most important factors in who stays and who goes will be ranking and geography. They will seek to keep as many top ranked people as possible, regardless of current sales force. They are not going to let an entire sales force, like CNS, go. They will not keep a low ranked MCR rep at the expense of letting a high ranked CNS rep go. They will decide it makes better business sense to retrain the higher ranked rep. The low ranked rep is ranked low for a reason (yeah, yeah, I know, your DSM doesn't like you. Tough luck).


Next they will match up the people they want to keep with the geography they have to cover. If you are a top ranked rep currently covering a territory that will be there in the new alignment, you're all set. If you are a top ranked rep in a territiory with a low ranked rep, the top ranked rep will stay. If you are in a territory with another top ranked rep, they will seek to move one of you to another nearby territory that has a low ranked rep, or to another TA with a territory with a low ranked rep.

As you can see, it all comes down to rankings. Sorry to break the news, but in this game somebody has been keeping score and you don't get a trophy just for participating.
Click to expand...
 




Anonymous said:
It will NOT all come down to rankings. Rankings will be part of it. It will come down to lawyer\'s criteria that will minimize company exposure to lawsuits. Plain and simple. You can speculate all day what the criteria will be. Nobody will reveal what it is. Smart people will be prepared with a plan. The Kool Aid drinkers will be hurt the worst. Not fun times my brothers and sisters.
Click to expand...

It is not speculation. Why do you think they go to all the trouble to rank? What makes you think ranking is illegal? Managers submit their checklist with criteria for review. That criteria is essentially ranking. Do you think others simply ignore that? I was talking to a BMS rep. That rep said that the RSD received an envelope telling who would keep their jobs. Now perhaps that RSD had already given input, I do not know. That may happen in other companies. It does not appear to happen at AZ, at least in the past and since we are guessing, the past is the best predictor of the future.
 




Anonymous said:
It is not speculation. Why do you think they go to all the trouble to rank? What makes you think ranking is illegal? Managers submit their checklist with criteria for review. That criteria is essentially ranking. Do you think others simply ignore that? I was talking to a BMS rep. That rep said that the RSD received an envelope telling who would keep their jobs. Now perhaps that RSD had already given input, I do not know. That may happen in other companies. It does not appear to happen at AZ, at least in the past and since we are guessing, the past is the best predictor of the future.
Click to expand...

The rambling, incoherent, unintelligible post above perfectly reflects today's big pharma rep.. Stupid, rumor mongering, bitch and moan, know nothing twit. Hope all your useless fucks get canned.
 




Anonymous said:
What do you think the criteria will be for layoffs. Also, do you think DSM's/RSD's have any input as to what will happen.

product mix you sell
ethnicity
mgr rankings
coe rankings
geography
reviews
Click to expand...

DSM's have input. If DSM is nervous, their RSD suck-up skills have lagged other districts. DSM's influence with their RSD's plays a critical role in PSS's future employment. Once your 2012 RSD has landed, it becomes a battle for RSD's to keep the people they want based on the numbers given to "grow share". Product mix, ethnicity, rankings, geography, and reviews fit the equation, so you are correct. Suck-up skills and teaming issues will weigh heavily on the minds of the decision makers too. It is not an exercise the majority of RSD's look forward to implementing. "Stepping-down" will be an option for a minority of displaced leaders.
 




Good article on forced ranking. It's fraught with legal problems for many reasons. It is totally subjective. If a kool-aid drinking DM, you know the ones that can't think for themselves, faults a non-kool-aid drinking rep (but otherwise productive) because that don't use the useless ISS selling model on every call, that rep is screwed and will be ranked higher than the rep that pisses off the offices but knows how to kiss the DM's ass. Also, some DM's are intimidated by more educated or more intelligent reps and view them as threats. Forced ranking aka force distribution is a piss poor way of measuring skills, but hey, this is AZ!




http://www.ehow.com/list_7457779_arguments-forced-ranking-employee-performance.html
 








I know for sure that the AZ lawyers strategically "measure and analyze" how potential layoffs affect the liability risk of AZ. For example, the minority layoff is much higher than a caucasian. This is fact. The conference room full of attorneys will slice and dice all of the reps but performance is only one part of it. The attorneys and HR get paid to limit the risk of AZ getting sued. The package for displaced employees can get sweeter with higher risk layed off employees. AZ forces you to sign the legal forms to forfeit any litigation in order to get your severance and benefits. If you sign, they mail check.

Also, there is a VERY VERY big focus on base pay right now with AZ and big pharma. They sort the reps by base salary and those making like $80k and up are certainly at risk. The entire goal of this process is to save money. Base salaries are a red flag nowadays cause AZ has profiled the new PSS as 25 year old making $55k a year plus $14k target. This is not my opinion, this is a fact. And the bad news for us PSS and DSM's ? If we make the cut on 12/1/11 then guess what will happen next year during the holidays? It will start all over again ! Trust me. IT will happen every year.
 




Top Bottom
Back
Quote