Big Lou hits the panic button

Since Big Lou took over the panic button has been hit. Iroko put in place a man who has been out of Pharma for over 12 years and what does he do? He bring in the Oz Principal, a sales principal from 1994. Let's look at every nickel and dime we spend. Try pizza for lunch and order less to save money. Maybe we should do less programs that is a big waste of money. Hey don't forget the pill count, in all my years in Pharma I have never been graded on pill count. Another "new" idea lets do a report on everything. I bet the next thing will be the oldie but goodie idea of territory business plan, then follow by let's do away with the copay cards because this product is so great the patients will pay $30 or $50 compare to generics at $10.

I think it is time to dust off the resume and get another job because things will get worse. The bonus checks this year will suck and the mass exodus will begin.

 

Lots of truth in here. Most importantly, the mass exodus comment! Oh it's going to begin alright. Start the countdown the drain plug is about to be pulled... Don't be a part of the swirl of shit!

 

Dust-off your resume?!? You've waited far too long to do that... Use your time WISELY (instead of wasting it by venting your frustrations here at CP) and update your resume NOW. Otherwise, why fight a war were you don't win anything by "winning"...

 

what does robyn think about this? i heard she loves the OZ idea…whoa!

 

Hey Lou I know how to save the company 2,160,000, give another week off. In case you need the math here it is, each call cost $150, each reps makes 45 calls which equals to $6750 and we have around 320 reps which equals $2,160,000 in one week

 

A week I'm going to take the next month off save the company lots of money

 

Amen to that.

 

Ditto my homies!

 

Love Oz Principle!

Was I Above the Line when I asked my hottest female doc to touch me below the belt?

I Saw It, Did It & Owned It... Right in the sample closet!

 

What does 85% retention mean to the field? It's the company that has to gives us the tools to sell and incentivize us to stay. Flat out cutting geographies is a corporate acknowledgement of inviability in some areas.
Its not just the reps. If you are an award winner, its time to cash in on that success. I am not so sure act ii and iii are going to nearly as easy. The next drug has a narrow focus and generic mobic is such a high volume seller, the pharmacies and ins cos are going to push back hard. Good luck with the four initiatives Lou, you're going to need it.

PS. Any initiative had to be meaningful and actionable by a party to be embraced. Retention is a management initiative, not one that can be acted upon by the field.

 

Lets take a look at things at Iroko, issues were small until Lou baby can on board with the great Oz Prinicpals. Remember this concept was written in 1994 and these Prinicpals don't work.

HOME OFFICE and BOARD of DIRECTORS listen to me on this, you need to send Lou baby back to the retirement village and take his out dated Oz principals original with him or we (the reps) will start saving this company a bunch of money by slowing down our activity. Do I need to be clearer on this? I will in case my point is not coming across, here we go, since the company says it cost $150 per call, we (the reps) will reduce our calls to 8 a day with most of them being made from our house.

LOU MUST GO or our sales will go down. Do you think any of us are worry about not making a big bonus? No because the IC plan will not allow any of us to make a big bonus.

Home Office and Board of Directors you have until April 15th to show Lou the door or things will slow down in the field.

 

Lou does need to go with his old ideas. Things where much better before he came on board.

 

It's time for my business to reduce its hours

 

You mean you are going to break the 4T axiom....

 

why??????? because you have to work now. go sell something or leave. stop wasting space here.

 

No, it is because Lou has not been in Pharma for 12 years and things has changed. The Oz Principal is about blaming someone and they are blaming us. The blame should be on upper management because they don't know what they are doing. Making threats to people does not work either.

The only wasted space is the managers because they don't have the balls to tell Lou his old ways don't work.

I hate it when managers get on CP and stand up for company. If you would take you head out of Lou's or Andrew's a$$ once in a while you might see what they are doing. M

 

All this extra work will not help me sell any more, in fact it will take time away from selling because I have a life and family. I am not working 2 or 3 hours after dinner for nobody. Please show my how the Oz Principal help the reps sell more? You can't because this does not work.

 

Before adopting this for your business it is worth considering whether it will achieve your goals and if it will have unintended consequences.

One of the first things you may notice in this book is that the authors have trademarked the commercial use of the two phrases "above the line®" and "below the line®". The horizontal "line" separates two types of behavior and attitudes, which represents the OZ principle. This might be some indication of their intentions.

Above the line thinking is about being accountable and below the line thinking is about "the blame game". In other words, the authors posit that we live in a culture of entitlement and pseudo-victimization where we are motivated to avoid accountability and blame others for failure. Consequently, this book (and its associated training courses) is often selected by management to obtain more "accountability" (and less excuses) from their employees.

Such a simplistic formula with a few twists and many anecdotal stories provide the necessary fuel for a highly successful book as well as a robust training and consulting practice. But, the expected results for your organization may not live up to the hype. This should be somewhat obvious on critical reflection, if you believe that people are not nearly as one-dimensional as this approach suggests.

I am all for accountability but have some concerns with this approach. First, its all-encompassing, individually-focused assessment of attitudinal performance is grossly over-simplistic, but interestingly appealing to organizations that are seeking simple solutions to their performance problems. It also appears to satisfy a number of individuals and managers who find solace in uncomplicated prescriptions to guide their staff behaviors. But, if you adopt this approach, be sure your managers don't use it to silence your employees and essentially reduce all problems to a single cause by attributing the accountability to one person.

According to the authors, when individuals are "confused", adopt a "wait and see" position, or try to "cover their tail", they are acting below the line, which comes across as a pejorative if not an accusatory label. This attribution is based on the notion that members do have the power to perform above the line should they so choose. So it is always deemed to be the employee's fault. What is missing here is the possibility that problems might lay elsewhere (such as in processes, coordination, resources, etc.) or result from multiple causes.

Above the line behavior is described as steps to accountability, which include "see it", "own it", "solve it", and "do it". While this is rather basic, it could be valuable training for some, to focus on basic execution rather than being paralyzed by inaction.

More important though is the primary flaw in this theory, which is its failure to deal with the realities of power and control in organizational settings. While there is a brief mention of empowerment (p. 203) the authors imply that this is the fault of employees. "...employees allow themselves to feel like victims of managers, management behaves accordingly, and results get held hostage by indecision and inaction" (p. 204).

In reality, information, connections, and resources are also important keys to empowerment, but somehow employees are accountable for gaining access to these without upsetting existing organizational structures or fearing any potential punishment for coloring outside the lines.

Some readers may be confused about the authors' concept of "accountability" which is the core theme of the book. Managers typically hold employees accountable which is clearly an expression of power. Yet, it is unlikely that employees could be seen as holding their boss accountable, at least with any punitive force.

Consequently, the authors sidestep this issue by redefining the word "accountability" to be "a personal choice to rise above one's circumstances and demonstrate the ownership necessary for achieving desired results" (p. 47).

However, simply redefining the word for their own use and pretending that it will somehow allow individuals to acquire resources and become accountable seems highly dubious. It is more likely that those with powerful positions will retain its pejorative use. In other words accountability is still a one way street in the land of OZ.

At the same time, the authors have a plan to "hold" employees accountable (now reverting to the traditional meaning of the word) by using a three step process (p. 192) that offers praise to employees who achieve specific measurable goals. While the employees may be invited to share in the goal setting, the asymmetrical availability of power and the ability to mete out rewards and punishments still reside with only one party.

Another underlying premise of this book is that individuals (whatever their position) are in complete control of the outcomes of their work. This is a long-held traditional view of organizations based on reductionist logic which has been significantly challenged in the Complexity literature (see my other reviews). In reality, very few substantive problems are the result of single causality.

To the extent that long-term outcomes are reliant on some forces beyond individual control, it is not just unfair to implement the version of accountability described in this book, but also possibly counterproductive. A better approach might be to drop the accountability rhetoric altogether and focus more on encouraging personal mastery, adaptation, and cooperative knowledge sharing. In other words, it is doubtful if the Oz principle is particularly good for accountability, motivation, or outcomes.

 

Wow! Right on the spot

 

That was a very impressive and complex review, much more so than our current business.

Interestingly, the leader board is dominated by 5 or 6 states while the company has proactively withdrawn from a number of others. This clearly states biases out of most reps control. This does not mean there aren't select reps who clearly go over and above to achieve, it also takes willing drs and a lot of luck with pharmacies and pbms not torpedoing your efforts.

The sample closets are littered with copay cards for every branded drug. This is pharma sales in the teens. The cash option on the copay cards has been a boon to reps bonus checks but is creating unrealistic expectations going forward. Those pts will NEVER pay cash for this medication. Does anyone believe there is a single pt not using a copay card? Avg pill counts above 60 per Rx lead you to believe a rep is getting more reimbursed Rxes, whereas below would dictate more free cash scripts. The company's increased push on pill counts seems to contradict the opening salvo in our long diatribe, "lowest dose for the shortest period of time."

But at the end of the day, its a job. Part of this job in thus era is to be on the lookout for the next job. There is no loyalty any more, so its every person for themselves.

The company's four initiatives don't even apply to the reps. We can't control attrition. Secondly, the franchise mentality flies in the face of FDA oversight and the company's inability and/or unwillingness to address problems, such as Javelin and data leave reps scratching their heads.

I do believe that Lou is probably a better fit to run this organization than John, but we should not have taken our foot of the gas and started in with this management guru BS. We all get it, we are adults. All this other stuff is BS that unnerves the rank and file rather than reassuring them.