This is a discussion about what the legal definition of fairness when it comes down to the IC goal attainment. I understand that pharmaceutical organizations like to say "Nothing in life is fair" but unfortunately for them legally there is a definition especially in regards to Quotas.
Ever wonder why no one, absolutely no one is ever fired based on numbers alone. Pharma companies start a harassment campaign to try to remove representatives. For example management would use multiple managers to ride with the same rep they want removed and use "SUBJECTIVE" comments to document poor sales performance. They use terms like, not asking for the business, or asking for the wrong business, or asking too hard for the business.
Why is no one fired based on numbers alone? Well for starters legally this is a flawed argument for the company. For example, if a rep starts at 110% to goal in the beginning of the quarter and finishes at 105% to goal at the end of the quarter that rep lost 5% of the business and if another rep starts the quarter at 90% to goal and finishes at 95% to goal, this rep gained 5% of the business. The very definition of performance is being effective, or faster, or growth. Obviously by that definition the rep that lost 5% has poor sales performance and the rep that gained 5% has excellent sales performance. Look at it like a race, you are all competitors, if you are competing in a marathon is it fair that some runners start at the 1 mile and some start at the 12 mile and others at the 22 mile. Not if there is a price in the end. Every quarter is a new race, therefore everyone should start at 100% to goal in the beginning of the quarter which means whatever number was SURPRISINGLY assigned to your IC is your growth or loss-of could only be based on that number. We can discuss past performance and how goals are calculated but thats another flawed argument for the company.
Ever wonder why no one, absolutely no one is ever fired based on numbers alone. Pharma companies start a harassment campaign to try to remove representatives. For example management would use multiple managers to ride with the same rep they want removed and use "SUBJECTIVE" comments to document poor sales performance. They use terms like, not asking for the business, or asking for the wrong business, or asking too hard for the business.
Why is no one fired based on numbers alone? Well for starters legally this is a flawed argument for the company. For example, if a rep starts at 110% to goal in the beginning of the quarter and finishes at 105% to goal at the end of the quarter that rep lost 5% of the business and if another rep starts the quarter at 90% to goal and finishes at 95% to goal, this rep gained 5% of the business. The very definition of performance is being effective, or faster, or growth. Obviously by that definition the rep that lost 5% has poor sales performance and the rep that gained 5% has excellent sales performance. Look at it like a race, you are all competitors, if you are competing in a marathon is it fair that some runners start at the 1 mile and some start at the 12 mile and others at the 22 mile. Not if there is a price in the end. Every quarter is a new race, therefore everyone should start at 100% to goal in the beginning of the quarter which means whatever number was SURPRISINGLY assigned to your IC is your growth or loss-of could only be based on that number. We can discuss past performance and how goals are calculated but thats another flawed argument for the company.