Thank you KK! Finally a fair appraisal process

Quote
Anonymous said:
They didn't hear that from anyone. Bottom line is its BS like everything posted here. Year end reviews will be based on all 4 quarters like every year and will take place in January/Feb like every year. Weighed the same as every year.
Click to expand...

It is definitely moving up; we had a con call about it. We are already working on our self appraisals.
 






Anonymous said:
New appraisal based soley on performance! No more management favorites getting inflated reviews. They are now non biased and fair!
Top 15% in numbers = CE
Top 65% = CM
Bottom 25% = CM, MS or PIP. Other metrics can only be used for those in this category in case numbers are not there because of special circumstance. But the highest they can get is a CM. No more MBO Bull.

Finally a fair and non political process that ALL RD's will follow to ensure a fair process across all regions and zones.
Click to expand...

OK, so you're saying performance based on our very flawed goaling system is fair??? Hmmm...
 






Anonymous said:
They didn't hear that from anyone. Bottom line is its BS like everything posted here. Year end reviews will be based on all 4 quarters like every year and will take place in January/Feb like every year. Weighed the same as every year.
Click to expand...

Where did you hear that from - Jan/Feb? We heard it on a conference call that is is 3 quarters! So why don't you stop making stuff up! Other people heard the same on their conference calls!
 






Anonymous said:
OK, so you're saying performance based on our very flawed goaling system is fair??? Hmmm...
Click to expand...

Exactly. Didn't Kathy say one of her top 3 objectives as VP is to fix the incentive comp system? Its broke, she knows it and Perry knows it which he has stated publicly. Yet its what is going to determine final performance? Am I missing something here?
 






Anonymous said:
Exactly. Didn't Kathy say one of her top 3 objectives as VP is to fix the incentive comp system? Its broke, she knows it and Perry knows it which he has stated publicly. Yet its what is going to determine final performance? Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

Much better process than RD's in a room bashing each rep. I would take my chances on numbers.
 






Nothing is different-there are only so many that can receive each each rating. Your RD's input has NEVER been enough to swing you away from the #/ranking that your % to quota earned. Trust me on this- I have been the one that tried to move some of you up and some of you down. This has not changed- it's the same end result. Don't kid yourself.
 






Anonymous said:
Nothing is different-there are only so many that can receive each each rating. Your RD's input has NEVER been enough to swing you away from the #/ranking that your % to quota earned. Trust me on this- I have been the one that tried to move some of you up and some of you down. This has not changed- it's the same end result. Don't kid yourself.
Click to expand...

Spill the beans...what's the average salary as an RD?
 






The RD posting above is full of crap. I've sat through several calibration meetings and rep reviews, and successfully moved 5 different reps up (and one down). If he/she can't swing it, either the ZD is a dictator, or they don't go to bat for their people.
As for those of you clamoring for a "fair" rating process based solely on numbers, you must not have been around long enough to remember when entire states received MS ratings based solely on numbers. Be careful what you ask for.
Average RD salary is around $120K, depending on tenure and sales history. The lower side is $105, higher $135
 






Anonymous said:
The RD posting above is full of crap. I've sat through several calibration meetings and rep reviews, and successfully moved 5 different reps up (and one down). If he/she can't swing it, either the ZD is a dictator, or they don't go to bat for their people.
As for those of you clamoring for a "fair" rating process based solely on numbers, you must not have been around long enough to remember when entire states received MS ratings based solely on numbers. Be careful what you ask for.
Average RD salary is around $120K, depending on tenure and sales history. The lower side is $105, higher $135
Click to expand...

Thanks, furthermore shows how overpaid my RD is
 






Anonymous said:
The RD posting above is full of crap. I've sat through several calibration meetings and rep reviews, and successfully moved 5 different reps up (and one down). If he/she can't swing it, either the ZD is a dictator, or they don't go to bat for their people.
As for those of you clamoring for a "fair" rating process based solely on numbers, you must not have been around long enough to remember when entire states received MS ratings based solely on numbers. Be careful what you ask for.
Average RD salary is around $120K, depending on tenure and sales history. The lower side is $105, higher $135
Click to expand...

The new attainment which gives lower goals to some lower share states or states with limited access would prevent entire states from getting a MS. I agree with OP, a number based rating system is much better and more clear and upfront then the calibration process.
 






Anonymous said:
Nothing is different-there are only so many that can receive each each rating. Your RD's input has NEVER been enough to swing you away from the #/ranking that your % to quota earned. Trust me on this- I have been the one that tried to move some of you up and some of you down. This has not changed- it's the same end result. Don't kid yourself.
Click to expand...

Trust me on this. Your post is BS.
 






Anonymous said:
The new attainment which gives lower goals to some lower share states or states with limited access would prevent entire states from getting a MS. I agree with OP, a number based rating system is much better and more clear and upfront then the calibration process.
Click to expand...

You are talking about the managed care adjustment which only a few lucky ones get. The regular goal setting is actually giving LESS goal to HIGH share territories. Look at the south. Their volume %growth is some of the lowest in nation and they are losing share but blowing out goal attainment for both products.

The rich keep getting richer.
 






Re: Thank you KK! Finally a fair appraisal processes

Anonymous said:
You are talking about the managed care adjustment which only a few lucky ones get. The regular goal setting is actually giving LESS goal to HIGH share territories. Look at the south. Their volume %growth is some of the lowest in nation and they are losing share but blowing out goal attainment for both products.

The rich keep getting richer.
Click to expand...

If the territory has a high share it SHOULD grow slower than a territory with lower share. therefore should have a lower goal. It's much easier to go from 0% share to 20% then it is to go from 30% to 35%. Your post is a joke right? The manage care adjustment goes to territories with less than the average share. Higher share territories are actually expected to get more scripts with the adjustment.
 






Re: Thank you KK! Finally a fair appraisal processes

Anonymous said:
If the territory has a high share it SHOULD grow slower than a territory with lower share. therefore should have a lower goal. It's much easier to go from 0% share to 20% then it is to go from 30% to 35%. Your post is a joke right? The manage care adjustment goes to territories with less than the average share. Higher share territories are actually expected to get more scripts with the adjustment.
Click to expand...

No not a joke. Have you ever stopped to think why territories, regions or zones for that matter have lower share seven years after launch? While it may be a surprise to you the south is not better at selling. Ever heard of access challenges? Third tier? Step edits? Plus, most of those geo's with lower share are way more profitable than high share geo's since the Rx is not discounted as much if at all. If those with +20% shares were paid on profitability you'd be looking at an MS rating since you are all losing share. You can't even keep up with your market growth.
 






Re: Thank you KK! Finally a fair appraisal processes

Anonymous said:
No not a joke. Have you ever stopped to think why territories, regions or zones for that matter have lower share seven years after launch? While it may be a surprise to you the south is not better at selling. Ever heard of access challenges? Third tier? Step edits? Plus, most of those geo's with lower share are way more profitable than high share geo's since the Rx is not discounted as much if at all. If those with +20% shares were paid on profitability you'd be looking at an MS rating since you are all losing share. You can't even keep up with your market growth.
Click to expand...

Wow you are an idiot. No wonder your territory has such a low marketshare.
 






Re: Thank you KK! Finally a fair appraisal processes

Anonymous said:
No not a joke. Have you ever stopped to think why territories, regions or zones for that matter have lower share seven years after launch? While it may be a surprise to you the south is not better at selling. Ever heard of access challenges? Third tier? Step edits? Plus, most of those geo's with lower share are way more profitable than high share geo's since the Rx is not discounted as much if at all. If those with +20% shares were paid on profitability you'd be looking at an MS rating since you are all losing share. You can't even keep up with your market growth.
Click to expand...

Clearly you have never sold in the south. Step edits, tier 3, not covered, restricted status, no access institutions are the main reasons that the share is going down and the market is out growing Vyvanse. The only thing I have wondered is why the company even keeps territories that cant get over 10% share seven years after launch.
 






Re: Thank you KK! Finally a fair appraisal processes

Anonymous said:
No not a joke. Have you ever stopped to think why territories, regions or zones for that matter have lower share seven years after launch? While it may be a surprise to you the south is not better at selling. Ever heard of access challenges? Third tier? Step edits? Plus, most of those geo's with lower share are way more profitable than high share geo's since the Rx is not discounted as much if at all. If those with +20% shares were paid on profitability you'd be looking at an MS rating since you are all losing share. You can't even keep up with your market growth.
Click to expand...

Market growth? Do you mean generic market growth, branded market growth? ER market growth or IR market growth? Let me guess you mean total market growth because that is the one number calculated for you on the generic spreadsheet you see weekly? There is a reason why the company is looking at factors outside of share.
 












Re: Thank you KK! Finally a fair appraisal processes

Anonymous said:
Clearly you have never sold in the south. Step edits, tier 3, not covered, restricted status, no access institutions are the main reasons that the share is going down and the market is out growing Vyvanse. The only thing I have wondered is why the company even keeps territories that cant get over 10% share seven years after launch.
Click to expand...

Clearly you have no teeth in your head if you are from the South.

Clearly you a mindless fuck from the South.

Shut up you fn hillbilly. Go make some more moonshine and sell it on the side of the road.
 












Top Bottom
Back
Quote