By Bill Jacobs
As Fall comes to a close, many golfers are completing another season of either glory
or frustration on the links here on the East Coast. Having had a recent experience
on the golf course, I can speak for many golfers who find the game difficult. So
why is that? Personally, I have only been able to eke out 8 rounds this year and
although some of you are envious of this accomplishment, most of the low handicap
golfers have played this much golf every two weeks. Here in lies the foundation
of the trainer's message - those who perform well, PRACTICE. As trainers, we can
relate to practice since we preach the practice message to everyone who graces our
training halls. Under the premise that the more an art or skill is performed, the
higher the proficiency, we can begin to evaluate how we perform training. Many of
the same training methods, which were deployed in the past 10 to 15 years to train
Pharmaceutical and Biotech representatives, have not changed significantly. Think
about your own training - Do you have Phase I and Phase II training? Do you invite
a physician (thought leader) to speak to the class? Do you spend 80% of live training
in a classroom setting? These approaches are not new and most companies currently
use all or part of these training methods. Since the majority of trainers are currently
using these methods, we have rarely questioned the effectiveness or need to run
these didactic programs. Consider these two questions are: "Are we serious about
changing how we currently train?" and "Does the training include enough simulation?"
First, "Are we serious about changing how we currently train?" is a question that
is typically outside the comfort zone for most trainers. In most cases, the reason(s)
for not changing what we do as trainers far out weigh the pain of change. It takes
training managers with incredible amounts of intestinal fortitude to make changes
from the status quo. Change also takes effort and hours which most trainers have
maxed out due to staff limitations, budget cuts, and the limited number of hours
in a day. Change also requires review by legal and regulatory committees and medical
associates who need to (and I think enjoy) scrutinize every "i" and "t" in your
recommendations.
The response to the second question "Does it include enough simulation?" depends
on how you define enough. I always thought we did enough role-play when I was a
head of the training department. I was wrong. So what is enough? I believe enough
is defined as the amount of training it will take in order to change a behavior.
If you liken the "art of selling" to a sport or art, how much time would you spend
in classroom versus hands-on? Using golf as the analogy, how much time did you spend
in the classroom to learn how to golf? How many PowerPoint slides did you see? And
did they invite Tiger Woods to speak during a golf clinic? This sarcasm will be
appreciated by some, realizing that the parallel is not that far off. Nothing will
take the place of important knowledge training, testing and other core principles
of training. Therefore, these basic tools are necessary but the time allocation
needs to be rebalanced. If we are serious about representatives learning a skill,
simulation should increase in importance. This can only happen if something else
is reduced from the agenda (this will be covered in a future article). Don't be
afraid to challenge old principles and remove live training items from the agenda.
The best way to find out if you have a removable item is to ask why - Why do we
do this? If you cannot come up with a reason which will change sales representative
performance or effectiveness, work to remove it.
Trainers agree that sales call simulation is the best way to become proficient or
even master a behavior; most are not aware of the new tools available. Time is money,
and one-on-one role-play is expensive in all industries. In the Pharmaceutical and
Biotech industries we are no different in the performance goals that we have for
our associates. We need to quickly and effectively generate results from new associates
who have little to a vast amount of experience. The ROI we look for in training
programs should be linked to greater outcomes. The focus in selecting a solution
should include metrics, and the ability to improve the consistency of the message.
Look internally for solutions and focus on the outcome that simulation works and
will create, what a representative in a class I was training called, muscle memory.
With many tools available to deliver message consistency of message you need to
look for the one which offers the greatest return. The focus should be to ensure
you are not using a tool which reinforces a "slice" or poor behavior. Simply recording
the voice or video without feedback can reinforce bad behavior. Tools should also
include the ability to give immediate feedback and allow for a "do over." How many
times do we give feedback after a role-play and then have them practice it again,
immediately? There should be a cost effective component which enhances the most
important tool you have, the live role-play.
Lastly, the most expensive tool is one that you do not use. Ensure the tools you
deploy are user friendly, increase effectiveness and can enhance the learning environment.
All of these decisions rest squarely in the hands of the future leaders in the training
industry. Developing a strategic training strategy requires risk taking, team work
and leadership. The next time you tee off remember, the best PRACTICE.
Bill Jacobs is the co-founder of ASERT-llc and founder of Medtraining.net and former
Senior Manager, Aventis Oncology Training. He has written articles for PMT and other
training publications. Bill was head of training for Aventis Oncology for the past
3 years during which Scott-Levin ranked their sales force #1 in Sales Force Effectiveness.
Bill has worked in the Pharmaceutical, Biotech, and Medical Device industries for
the past 17 years. To contact Bill, write to 110 N. Main St., Coopersburg, PA 18036.