This does pose the question why do we have a divide between the field and head office? Aren’t we all working towards the same goal which comes back to the annual objectives usually consisting of a revenue target, a competitive market goal and ultimately improving the health of people with the medicines that we have available, often in the introduction or growth stage of the product life cycle. Everyone has their own accountabilities and hold a piece of the corporate jigsaw, together we should be moving in coordination and in the same direction.

Reviewing the definition “an incentive is a factor or a set of factors that motivates or encourages an individual to perform an action or behave in a specific manner1.” The key word appears to come back to the individual, what can motivate us to get better as an individual. This works on the proviso that in isolation you can have a definitive impact on everything that is happening in the locality you are working within. We have often seen how two neighbouring health economies within one territory can operate differently, does this mean that the accountable field colleague is doing everything right in one area and performing badly next door! There is clearly something else happening linked to the way the health economy works, formulary status, the effectiveness of medicines management policy implementation, clinician behaviour or other external factors.

Field team incentivisation often has an element of sales vs. target achievement based around brick or hospital sales, this is often where the first challenge lies. We assume that the sales are generated are from targeted customers within these localities, it’s an assumption we have used for decades as we have nothing better. If we had access to the type of prescriber level data that there is in the US we could see cause and effect with minimal effort. There will often be a competitive market scenario such as market share or market share growth, this is often used to offset the uncertainty in the sales target, there is an argument that you should be competitive although you may not make the stretch target. That will be another reflection coming soon.

The mechanisms mentioned are both objective and measurable but are they really motivating and engaging or are they an expectation and a target to hit to allow the identification of top performers with the use of rankings to be made additionally rewarded. Where does the annual appraisal rating fit into this scenario? It is often linked to personal priorities that sit outside the incentive scheme and allows for a calibration of annual salary increments. We are probably missing a trick to further align the priority setting and incentive scheme components, albeit administration becomes more difficult, requiring more consistency in calibration and communication as it is often easier to manage processed data alone. ZS recently released an article on designing human-centric sales incentive compensation plans2, focussing on a personalised engagement strategy to ensure success which provides an interesting read.

This doesn’t overcome the challenge of the components used which need to be motivating in a time where key account management becoming more commonplace, an individual with accountability calling on colleagues with differing skills to support the account, advance the relationship and find the right outcome for the patient. Team incentives are becoming commonplace due to the challenges outlined earlier and the adoption of an omnichannel journey which differentiates the route a customer is exposed to messages.  Is it time to take a fresh view on the field incentive scheme and blend it with the appraisal cycle, should this be for one team in isolation when a company desires to move as one with a refreshed go to market approach.

The incentive scheme appears as variable expenditure on the P&L, what should we do to maximise this COST. A few ideas:

1. Communicable – what is it that we are trying to achieve and can this be communicated clearly, concisely and with meaning to motivate someone to do something different today vs. yesterday.
2. Objective – is the scheme objective rather than subjective, can components be measured and calibrated either with data or through other mechanisms that will stand up to scrutiny.
3. Simple – no more than three components or the focus is diluted, the components become meaningless, difficult to communicate and unlikely to be remembered.
4. Trusted – Are we rewarding the behaviours desired; does it support the desired go to market strategy and does it promote collaboration or inadvertently causing harmful internal competition.

There is a role for an incentive scheme, this needs to be well thought through, trusted and understood by everyone whilst adding value to the organisation and the individuals concerned.

Article sources

1. Quickonomics.com, “Incentive Definition & Examples - Quickonomic"
     Accessed September 2024

2. ZS.com:  "Designing human-centric sales incentive compensation plans | ZS"
    Accessed September 2024