Question to HR?

I am an experienced rep with extensive pharmaceutical experience in a territory that I applied for. I received an automatic email response informing me that I was not selected for an interview. The position requirements state that candidates should not have more than 4 years of sales experience. Why is that? You prefer less qualified employees?

 

Yes because no sane rep would understand or be motivated by GSK's Patient First system of obsessively testing reps.

They want newbies with no experience that will drink the testing koolaid and won't buck the dysfunctional system that's been built here. Consider yourself lucky that you didn't end up here.

 

They and other pharma companies don't want reps that "know the game". They want people who still think this is the greatest job in the world where you get the care, wear a suit and basically look cool with your company credit card. They don't want the reps who know this job sucks a fat prick and the coolness wears off in 3 days. They figure the new reps will get jacked up and actually try and sell something instead of messing around all day and basically working 3 hours per month and talking and bitching to counterparts the rest of the time.

 

^THIS^ HaHa! However, if you are a minority you can be a DM before you finish your 1st year. If you are a minority woman, you can be a DM in 6 months, if you are a minority peter puffer you can be the CEO before you finish Initial Sales Training.

 

Yes, but other companies are going to follow our lead. There is a line of companies that want to be just like us. How do I know? My director, VP, and business head told me so.

 

This model appears to be as much of a success as Obamacare is. Those behind both programs will tell you how great it is going.

 

The PT First Model is "Broken". You are lucky that you will not be interviewing here. The starting salaries for the job you were interested in is 45K-55K. Any of our competitors will pay you more.

 

The reason is because reps with more than a couple years experience do not last here - they quit within 18 months.

 

Lots of good ways company and HR like to spin this..they want someone who is still 'growing' into territory, don't want to have to 'retrain or re-skill' a seasoned rep, want to develop talent for future growth, blah blah blah, the real answer is dollars. they want to payless, why hire someone who was making more in past, will likely be frustrated for salary decline, be more stubborn to training and more likely to leave (to where? I don't think theres all lot of wheres to go to for pharma reps)...more postings showing up with requirements for "new college grads' or 2 years business sales, when's the last job post you've seen looking for 8+ years experience required any primary/specialty care required?

 

The real answer is that you have experience in an industry that has changed. You can adapt to the change, but not if you don't realize it has changed. People new to the industry (not younger or non-experienced, but new to the industry) have a much higher track record of success in this system. They are more successful with customers, with business, and they aren't a poison to the culture for those of us that are trying to adapt and be successful in this system. They are okay with studying and don't let it take away from their sales focus. The responses to the original poster show exactly why we need to recruit non-pharma.

 

It's not going to work. These youngins won't be stupid and they will figure out within a year that they are getting screwed working here after they talk to reps at other companies. They will get burned out on tests and get frustrated just like we do. Glaxo might get a year of kohl laid drinking at best before they figure it out.

 

You are 100% wrong. No one can survive in this industry without having been able to deal with significant change over the past 20 years. Where change needs to occur is the RBD level and above, how about we stop hiring our buddies who have made the same decisions over and over and over again at multiple companies and not gotten different results, say for instance, DC at Lilly and GSK and the flock that left to go to Sanofi. No new ideas, no acknowledgement of change in the marketplace and specifically, no change in the corrupt business dealings of highly placed "leaders" all over the world. Go ahead, tell us all again that experienced reps "poison the culture".

 

It's true that you never see a position requiring years of experience. It's sad because like many I was naive to this when I started in the industry and thought the more experience I got the more opportunities would open up. It's one of the few industries that I have seen where you are not rewarded for experience or even accomplishments. Other than the pay issue, I will never understand this. This is a major problem for aging pharma reps because so many other types of sales positions will not hire us. As I approach 40 soon, I wish I had a do over. I never would have chosen this for a career. And to think at one time I was so proud of my job. Where does it get any of us?

 

I agree with your thoughts on leadership needing to adapt. Just to clarify, did not mean experienced people poison culture - I meant experienced people who could not adapt. I meant people who either never tried to adapt or tried to and felt that they couldn't. These people are not going to turn the clock back and are preventing progress - in my opinion.

 

The industry has changed but GSK in my opinion is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. All this Patient First would be great if true but when you don't tell the sales force what they answered incorrect on test how is this putting the patient first? The above poster quotes" They are okay with studying and don't let it take away from their sales focus". What a load of crap! For starters I thought we were no longer sales focused??? Second what they are saying is study for test should not take you out of the field. Basically GSK treats their sales force like a bunch of mushrooms. Feed them shit and keep them in the dark.

Now new allegations of corruption in the company. Lol so proud.

I beg to differ in regards to customer feedback. Customers not impressed with new book smart reps with no sales ability. Top docs now telling other reps that GSK is a sinking ship.

 

What a load of garbage. Do you really think a doc is complaining to another rep that GSK is a sinking ship because they are more focused on knowing about their product (smart rep) versus having someone come in to give them a slick sales line or two? Give me a break.

 

GSK doesn't want to hire an experienced rep because they don't want to pay for the experience (neither do other companies). Rep salaries have been driven downward since the good old days; compensation is down, first the pension (went to cash balance), then the salary (down for new hires), bonus (I made $22K before taxes in my best quarter with GSK) and tenure (voluntary/involuntary reductions). The decisions were made years ago. We just have to make the best of it. The reality is, the pay and benefits are better than for most jobs today.

 

Quick 2 points: Nobody ever said we weren't sales focused. You just don't understand this different sales model or maybe your manager doesn't. My manager does and is very sales focused - while not rating on data.

Second point: We get time out of the field for study with admin days. We are also given guidance to find at least 1 lunchtime per week to make it a working/study lunch. Other teams do it differently. My point is stop bitching and find a solution or stop bitching and leave to a company you understand. Either way, would be great if you stopped bitching. Not that I think that will happen.

 

Who said we weren't sales focused? My manager is very sales focused while not rating on sales. My whole point was that some people cannot see this as sales or are not motivated to grow their business. That's okay. Those people are wrong for this sales model and should leave and make space for people who will do better.

Second point is that we are given time and guidance for study in and out of the field. We have call activity expectations and study expectations. It's not either, it's both. Anyone that can't get that is wrong for this sales model. You even say "book smart reps with no sales ability".

Last point, you're right, we don't get test questions back.

 

balls