Author Archives: The Alpine Group

A Candidate-Driven Job Market

The Blogs of Dave Murphy: A Candidate-Driven Job Market

The U.S. unemployment rate across all industries dropped to 3.8% in May, and it was the 92nd straight month where more jobs were added to the workforce than lost. There are now more job openings than unemployed workers and the U.S. economy is experiencing the second longest run of GDP expansion in history, with positive growth every quarter since the end of the Great Recession in 2009. As a result we have been experiencing what recruiters refer to as a “candidate-driven job market,” where the demand for talented, ambitious employees with unique skills far outpaces the supply of those workers.

Some of the growth can be explained by economic difficulties in other industrialized regions around the world, as well as by sound economic policies implemented since the recession. A significant cause of the imbalance in the job market, however, is the changing demographic patterns in the U.S. workforce. The retirement of baby-boomers has led to a management void and there aren’t enough bodies to replace them, particularly in certain knowledge-intensive industries like Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology, and Med Tech. The net result is that, although we can expect a temporary rebalancing in the labor market in the next recession, talent shortages will be a significant issue in the U.S. economy for many years to come and we need to prepare accordingly.

What does this mean for employees and job candidates?

Good news, generally speaking. Candidates who are open to making a job change now routinely have multiple opportunities in front of them and often more than one job offer to consider. Wages are increasing and candidates have more leverage in salary discussion, particularly if they anticipate that their current employer is likely to extend a counter-offer when they resign (that is a topic for a different Blog). We’re seeing more willingness by employers to allow for remote work arrangements or telecommuting because employees don’t feel much pressure to relocate for job opportunities. Employees with hard-to-find skill sets know they are well positioned to ride out the next recession, even if there is a year or so of widespread downsizings.

What does this mean for employers and hiring managers?

It requires a change in both hiring and management orientation for those organizations that want to succeed in the War for Talent. For a company or division who long-term survival depends on the presence of knowledge-based workers it is absolutely critical that they are trained in how to attract and retain the best people. Many organizations will have difficulty changing their culture and orientation to adapt to this new reality, particularly large, multinationals that have a tradition of “screening applicants” and choosing new employees as if they are shirts on a rack in a department store. The shirt doesn’t say “no, I’m not going,” but the A Player at the direct competitor does, and he or she needs to be sold on the idea of quitting their job and taking another one. It’s not very difficult: if as an employer you have a good story to tell then tell it, particularly if it includes opportunity for career development and advancement. Be fast and responsive to candidates in the interview process and show interest in them personally. Those simple, common-sense steps will help progressive employers win the War for Talent.

In our candidate-driven job market employees are now basing their decisions about where to go to work – and where to remain – on things other than compensation and benefits. They want competent, trustworthy management with limited re-organizations, a collaborative atmosphere, and a runway for advancement of some sort, among other things. Salaries, bonuses and stock offerings have all bounced back nicely since 2009, but other cultural changes have been slower to develop, or to re-emerge. An example of this is how companies are handling the issue of relocation for new employees. Before the recession, which was caused in large part by the mortgage crisis, employers were quick to provide full financial assistance in moving new employees, including paying real estate transaction fees. Now even the large global organizations are rarely doing that for middle-management workers, and instead are offering small sign-on bonuses to cover the cost of moving household items and a few months of temporary housing. So that’s an example of an opportunity for an employer to differentiate themselves in the talent war, by offering more generous relocation packages.

There are many changes an organization can consider as it repositions itself to become an employer of choice. Some are large, expensive endeavors, but most are small actions that demonstrate a “high touch” orientation and a feeling that the company really cares about their people. The first step, of course, is to make the decision that you want to be an employer of choice. As a recruiting professional I have a unique opportunity to see the various tools and techniques used by many different organizations, and some are more effective than others. Please let me know if you would like to discuss them.

Advertisements

What Drives Us Beyond Fear of Change?

The Blogs of Dave Murphy: What Drives Us Beyond Fear of Change?

As a hiring manager and team leader in the workforce you know that your most valuable assets are talented, ambitious employees. It’s useful to occasionally review the reasons why these high-performing people choose to work for you, whether that means taking a job offer or remaining on your team long-term. There is a natural human tendency to resist change and fear the unknown, but if the motivation is great enough you can be sure that the A Player employees will pursue greener pastures if it is in their best interest to do so. What are those motivators? A popular method of categorizing them is summarized by the acronym CLAMPS, which stands for Challenge, Location, Advancement, Money, People and Security. Each of these drivers affects people differently at different times, and it’s extremely beneficial to understand their impact.

Challenge – One of the most commonly cited reasons people have in explaining why they want to make a job change is to find an opportunity that is more challenging for them, to allow them to stretch their abilities and develop new skills that will enhance their career. Sometimes people make job changes simply because they are bored, or because they have been in an organization for a long period of time that has not given them the opportunity to do different things. This is not as strong a motivator as those based on fear but it can be powerful nonetheless.

Location – This relates to non-work related quality of life issues beyond just commute time. It includes significant life decisions to be near family members, to keep kids in a particular school, and to reduce the amount of overnight travel, among other things. These are often non-negotiable factors, and we have seen them become more important as the years go by. As generations change and our society has become more affluent there has been an increasing unwillingness to accept a job in a non-preferred geographic location.

Advancement – Perhaps the most important driver for ambitious professionals to consider making a job change is the opportunity to advance their career in duties, responsibilities, direct reports, and job title. It’s the most commonly cited reason I hear when people call me back to discuss career opportunities. The one that stands out the most is for individual contributors who want to supervise a team. This is industry and discipline dependent of course, but for many people the hurdle to get this level is very high.

Money – Many would assume that compensation is the leading factor people consider when they decide to make a job change or to remain in their current company. That’s not the case, however. It is certainly a part of the overall consideration but it’s rarely if ever the number one cited reason. Most high performers simply want to be paid fairly based on industry and geographic standards. Some folks become more willing to accept more risk-and-return as they advance through their career, exchanging base salary for variable comp and equity.

People – This is a huge reason why employees consider making a job change, and the number one reason I hear when they say they are happy with their current situation. Everyone wants to work with smart, talented, nice people who can make their day more enjoyable, share ideas, and stretch them to accomplish things they wouldn’t do on their own. Indeed, this is the main reason that we hold interviews: to evaluate personal chemistry and cultural fit, on both sides.

Security – Fear is a powerful motivator in all of life’s endeavors, and the job market is no different. If employees are concerned that their job is at risk of being eliminated or that an acquisition or reorganization will change their job satisfaction they will make a change faster than for any other reason. Age and family status play a major role in the need for security, and some people are willing to put up with the bureaucracy, politics and perceived security of large organizations based on their personal circumstances and the phase of their life.

How does all this impact the employee selection process when filling a job opening?

When a hiring manager needs to fill an important position he/she will normally develop a list of required and preferred qualifications for the job and initiate the “selection” process. Often overlooked in this process is the importance of convincing the best candidates to consider quitting their current job and taking yours. The most effective way to convince the superstar candidate to make that change is to understand their primary motivators and to explain why your opportunity will better satisfy their needs than other opportunities.

Proactive hiring managers will often discuss the CLAMPS model with candidates early in the interview process and ask them to articulate what they are seeking. If a candidate can’t identify a rational reason for making a change or pursuing your opportunity then they are either not serious about making a switch or do not prefer what you have to offer. It saves a bunch of time and heartache to weed these candidates out early in the process rather than have them reject an offer at the end – or take a counteroffer from their current employer.

It’s no secret that we are experiencing a “candidate-driven” job market where there is an undersupply of talent relative to the demand for specific kinds of employees. In addition to competing effectively for the best employees managers must work harder than ever to retain them once they are on-board. The CLAMPS model comes into play again for the same reasons: people choose to stay in a job using the same criteria as when they choose to leave for another job. It’s very useful to know each team member’s primary motivators when working with them to create a career development plan or to inspire them to perform at a high level in a particularly difficult situation. Good managers will continually probe, using the CLAMPS model or something similar, to stay up to date on what drives each team member. As always I welcome your comments and questions.

2017 Salary Analysis – Marketing Professionals in the Medical Industry

Each year I analyze the results of self-reported salary information to get a current understanding of average compensation levels across the Biopharmaceutical and Medical Technology industry. I have the data broken out by four different levels of marketing positions and by company size. The intent is to provide select clients with real-time bench-marking information that can help their organization stay current as they attempt to attract and retain key employees. This is information provided by real marketing personnel working in the Drug and Med Tech industry in 2017, in contrast to syndicated data gathered from surveys of job-band salary ranges, which are not based on individual’s salaries and are typically published 6-12 months after they are reported.

The four levels of marketing positions I’ve analyzed are:
1. Product Managers, Associate Product Managers or other titles assigned to personnel with less than five years of upstream, pipeline planning or downstream marketing experience
2. Sr. Product Managers, Group Product Managers or other titles assigned to personnel with five or more years of marketing experience who are at the highest level of individual contributor and working in a role that is not intended to have direct reports.
3. First-line Marketing Managers, Associate Directors or Directors. These are people who have or will have direct reports assigned to them.
4. Senior Directors, Vice Presidents or other titles of personnel who lead the marketing function of an organization, and are most often managers of managers. These positions do not include Sales, Business Development, Managed Care or other functions that typically report into the C Suite or Sr. VP level.

Employers are defined as “Large” if they generate 1B or more in annual revenue and / or have more than 5000 employees. This base salary analysis does not consider bonuses or equity packages, which are generally more comprehensive in smaller and mid-sized organizations than in larger ones.

Results – Biopharmaceutical Industry

Marketing Level I
Associate Product Managers, Product Managers and other junior-level, individual contributors with fewer than five years of marketing experience: The average base salary for Level I marketers in 2017 was $115,526. Among large employers the average was $124,583, and among small and mid-size employers the average was $100,071.

Marketing Level II
Sr. Product Managers, Product Managers and personnel with five or more years of marketing experience who are senior-level, individual contributors and working in a role that is not intended to have direct reports. The average base salary for Level II marketers in 2017 was $151,804. Among large employers the average was $157,687, and among small and mid-size employers the average was $138,357.

Marketing Level III
First-line managers, including Group Marketing Managers, Associate Directors and Directors – these are marketing managers who have or will have direct reports assigned to them. The average base salary for Level III marketers in 2017 was $192,947. Among large employers the average was $201,714, and among small and mid-size employers the average was $187,833.

Marketing Level IV
Senior Directors, Vice Presidents or other personnel who lead the marketing function of an organization. They are not responsible for Sales, Business Development, Managed Care or other functions reporting into the Chief level. The average base salary for Level IV marketers in 2017 was $249,863. Among large employers the average was $273,101, and among small and mid-size employers the average was $236,643.

Results – Medical Technology Industry (Medical Device and Diagnostics)

Marketing Level I
Associate Product Managers, Product Managers and other junior-level, individual contributors with fewer than five years of marketing experience: The average base salary for Level I marketers in 2017 was $102,641. Among large employers the average was $114,205, and among small and mid-size employers the average was $94,132.

Marketing Level II
Sr. Product Managers, Product Managers and personnel with five or more years of marketing experience who are senior-level, individual contributors and working in a role that is not intended to have direct reports. The average base salary for Level II marketers in 2017 was $138,056. Among large employers the average was $144,162, and among small and mid-size employers the average was $131,950.

Marketing Level III
First-line managers, including Group Marketing Managers, Associate Directors and Directors – these are marketing managers who have or will have direct reports assigned to them. The average base salary for Level III marketers in 2017 was $176,120. Among large employers the average was $181,211, and among small and mid-size employers the average was $169,426.

Marketing Level IV
Senior Directors, Vice Presidents or other personnel who lead the marketing function of an organization. They are not responsible for Sales, Business Development, Managed Care or other functions reporting into the Chief or Sr. VP level. The average base salary for Level IV marketers in 2017 was $231,730. Among large employers the average was $250,625, and among small and mid-size employers the average was $223,333.

ANALYSIS
As in prior years there was a 30-40K gap in the average base salaries from one level to the next (the gap is wider at higher levels, as would be expected). Across all levels salaries have risen by 4-5% above 2016, which is a slightly higher growth rate than the prior year, and the higher level marketers enjoyed a greater increase than those at lower levels, with Level IV marketers showing a 7.2% increase over the prior year. There continues to be a gap between base salaries paid by large-cap companies versus their smaller counterparts. The percentage gap between large and small organizations is greater at the Director and VP levels than at lower levels (on the other hand, equity packages at those levels are much richer in smaller companies than in larger ones).

Despite ongoing contraction and layoffs, marketers in the Biopharma industry continued to earn a slightly higher base salary than their counterparts in the Med Tech space, with a 7-11% difference across the various levels. The difference in salaries between the industries is more pronounced at lower levels (Manager and Sr. Manager) and less pronounced at higher levels (Director and VP).

Overall, base salaries continued to trend upward in the BioPharma and Medical Technology industries in 2017, which is consistent with the employment and new job creation rates reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

New Salary Disclosure Rules – Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?

The Blogs of Dave Murphy: New Salary Disclosure Rules – Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?

In January 2018 California will join the growing list of states and municipalities in the U.S. that have rules in place preventing employers from asking job candidates about their compensation history (other such jurisdictions currently include Massachusetts, Delaware, Oregon, Philadelphia, New York City and state). Each law provides their own unique directions along with exceptions and “safe harbor” provisions, but the rationale for enacting them is to prevent the exploitation of historically underpaid employees, and in particular to close the “gender gap” in compensation differences between men and women (some of the laws specifically address the gender gap in their preambles). The spirit of the law is to provide equal pay for equal work, so these are positive steps toward ensuring that all employees regardless of gender, race, ethnicity or any other demographic trait are treated fairly and are not exploited.

In addition to demographic traits another segment of the work force that has been subject to potential wage exploitation consists of unemployed or transitioning workers. The thinking is that some employers will take advantage of a candidate who has no current income and offer them a wage that is at the lowest end of the designated pay scale for the job. This is exacerbated by the often-false perception that unemployed candidates are not as productive and high-performing as those who are currently working and not actively seeking a new job. Of course this is patently unfair when employees are caught in a large reduction-in-force or layoff and have no control over their employment status, particularly in the age of skyrocketing mergers and acquisitions.

So these new laws are good for us, right? Most reasonable people would agree with the rationale behind them and envision that they will become the law of the land in the U.S. in the near future. There is a danger, however, for many job-seeking candidates to assume that non-disclosure of compensation history will work to their benefit. One must remember that they are in a competition with other job-seekers for an opening and that the employer might very well select someone else for the position, and that the price tag for the employee is a relatively small part of the overall selection criteria. While there are exceptions, for the majority of candidates it will be advantageous to proactively disclose salary history information at some point in the selection process rather than keeping that information hidden.

From the employer’s perspective they are trying to find the best employee possible for their opening and pay them fairly, so that the new team member will be happy and productive in the job, and stay with the organization long-term. The job market is subject to the same supply and demand forces of other markets; if an employee is unhappy for whatever reason in their current job they can make a job change (just talk to your friendly Executive Recruiter about that . . .) One way to correct an exploitive wage situation is to find an employer who will pay fairly for top talent, and good employers know that. But what is considered “fair” compensation? For the employee it means being paid consistently with what that industry generally pays for that function. The employer follows that same direction too, but also must maintain their own “internal equity” at their organization – making sure that they don’t pay a new person more than an existing employee who has similar qualifications and experience. So there is pressure on the employer to ensure that they are offering a candidate an appropriate wage that is a win-win for both sides.

How does the employer find that appropriate offer?

In addition to monitoring industry wage trends and maintaining internal equity, the hiring manager must make an offer to the candidate that is financially incenting for personal reasons as well. Some candidates are highly motivated by money, others not as much, but all want to believe they are being treated fairly. In the new era of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” candidates will now be asked about their salary expectations at some point in the selection process, possibly more than once. As a candidate you now have an important decision to make. If you share a number that is beyond what the employer believes is reasonable for them to pay you are likely to screen yourself out of the selection process (remember, they have other candidates to consider). And if you share a number that is below what they believe is reasonable then you are leaving money on the table. That’s why I always recommend that a candidate reply to the question about salary expectations by explaining that they are seeking a compensation level that is fair and reasonable based on their qualifications. Now, if an employer already has information about the candidate’s compensation history they typically have an idea of what they would like to offer, and that reply nearly always deflects the difficult question about money that inevitably comes up in the interview process.

In the new era however, the employer (most often an HR manager) will either attempt to “pre-close” a candidate during the money conversation or be faced with a protracted negotiating process after they make an offer, which is something they don’t want. Depending on how gracefully the candidate communicates in that “negotiation” he or she may or may not get the job. I’ve seen many cases where a job offer is rescinded by an employer because of frustration with the candidate’s communication style at the point of offer. The vast majority of employers want to extend an original offer that is the “best they can do,” or very close to it. A candidate may be able to go the well one time to enhance it, but generally not more than once. The rejection of counteroffers will doom the process, and it can all be avoided with better communication earlier in the process about what is incentivizing to the candidate.

So, in responding to that question about salary expectations I will continue to recommend that most candidates disclose some of their compensation history and also provide some direction about what they are seeking for that particular position. For candidate’s who believe they have been exploited in the past for whatever reason they can explain their situation. This will give the employer the opportunity to offer something that is incentivizing and is a win-win for both sides, and avoid the potential for the candidate to create ill will or burn up political capital before they even start working at the company.

As a recruiter and broker of these deals I have observed that the more transparency and candor both sides exhibit in the process the higher the likelihood of a new hire, and of having someone remain with the company long-term. I view the new trend of non-discloser as a potential threat to the process. On the other hand, it’s likely going to be a boon for the recruiter-broker who will be called upon more than ever to optimize communication and facilitate the process.

As always, I welcome your comments or questions. Happy New Year!

Giving Thanks in the Job Market

The Blogs of Dave Murphy: Giving Thanks in the Job Market

On Thanksgiving I took some time to ponder those things for which I’m thankful and it got me thinking about comments I’ve been hearing from hiring managers as they try to find people to fill openings on their team. For many employers it’s becoming less about finding specific technical skills or accomplishments in a resume and more about finding people with integrity, character and – most of all – humility. The matrixed based management structure prevalent in most organizations today requires that employees collaborate closely with their team members, and that they take time to thank and praise colleagues when appropriate as well as acknowledge their own faults and mistakes. The ability to be genuinely humble in this type of environment is a trait that is becoming harder to find.

As a candidate in a job interview it can be very tricky to express humility while also proving that you’re good at your job. An interview is a time to proactively communicate your attributes and positive qualities, which can be perceived as “bragging.” Hiring managers want to know that, although an individual has been working as part of a team, he or she can demonstrate individual contributions that have made a difference in the team achieving its goals. So candidates have to provide that evidence, but in a way that makes it clear that they value their colleagues and don’t take all of the credit for a team’s success. Team leaders don’t want to hire “Lone Wolves”, no matter how talented they may appear. Hiring managers want people who are genuinely thankful for the opportunity to be a part of a high-performing group of professionals. So as a candidate it’s important to balance “bragging” statements with humility and acknowledgement of other’s contributions.

A frequently asked question of candidates in the interview process is about perceived weaknesses or “areas for development.” Most interviewers will point out that we all have them, and will sometimes frame the question by asking what a candidate’s supervisor would say about their areas for improvement. This is another measurement of one’s humility and it is important to be truthful and genuine in your response. Hiring managers are generally not impressed when they hear something like, “sometimes I work too hard and have to take a break to achieve work-life balance.” That may be true but it’s a very predictable response and doesn’t get to the issue of whether or not you’re able to be self-critical and willing to acknowledge your faults. One candidate told me that his boss pointed out that he had a tendency to talk too much in meetings, so he deliberately set out to spend more time in active listening in order to help make the team more effective, at the expense of his own self-promotion.

Sometimes I’m asked if the trend toward individual attainment and away from humility and thanksgiving in the workplace is a by-product of our mas-and-social-media fueled culture. I think that’s true to some extent but it doesn’t automatically mean that younger Millennials are necessarily going to be less humble than Baby Boomers. I think that everyone, regardless of age and experience, must recognize the forces at work here and take steps to self-regulate themselves, whether working on cross-functional teams or answering interview questions.

Hiring managers are seeking that magic balance of skill and will. When they talk about a candidate’s lack of “personal chemistry” or “cultural fit,” they are most often referring to their perception of the candidate’s will: not just the willingness to work hard, but also the willingness to be humble and grateful for the opportunity to be part of a team. It is an increasingly important trait in the workforce and one we should all work on improving. As always I welcome your questions and comments.

The Dysfunctional Product Launch Blues

The Blogs of Dave Murphy: The Dysfunctional Product Launch Blues

The old adage says “you better be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.” In many ways that captures the spirit of the new product approval process in the BioPharma and Med Tech industries. A company works for years to develop a breakthrough therapy or diagnostic test and when it finally gets approved, then what? The inventors and product developers have completed their job and now all eyes turn to the marketing department – and you better have your plan in place. Nothing is more stressful – and more rewarding – in the career of a marketing professional than the opportunity to launch a truly innovative product. After citing the opportunity for growth and advancement, it is the most common reason that marketing professionals share with me when describing their motivation to make a job change. For most people it only happens a few times in their career, and of course it’s important to make the most of it.

When everything goes smoothly and according to plan everyone celebrates a successful launch and thanks the marketers for doing a nice job. They had leading-edge technology, put together a reasonable plan, and didn’t screw things up. But what about those occasions where things don’t go so well? Sometimes launches don’t meet expectations, or they are so stressful when they are successful that the culture of the organization suffers dramatically. In those instances a marketing team can end up with the Dysfunctional Product Launch Blues.
Similar to a doctor routinely hearing complaints and bad news from patients, when I’m speaking with people about their interest in making a job change it’s often a bad experience in their current situation that has them talking with me. The negative experience can be driven by many things, but a common malady is DPLB. I’ve heard it said that “you never get a second chance to make a first impression” and that the first six months of a launch will usually set the trajectory of the product forever. So there’s a great deal of pressure to get it right, which means long hours, frayed emotions, and the potential for dysfunction in a marketing department.

I recently placed a Marketing Manager in a company that is in the middle of launching it’s first major innovation in about 15 years. It’s a first-in-class product and expectations are running high. While colleagues in Engineering, Project Management, Accounting / Finance and other departments are going home at 5:00, the marketing team is still there at 9:00 or later each time, working frantically to resolve details about things like sales meetings, tiered-discounts, and Med Ed slide decks. Meetings are tense, Directors are yelling at each other, and senior executives are micro-managing. The stress flows down from the top and as the Marketing Manager told me, “it’s hard to find an executive who can display grace under pressure during this launch.”

Marketers choose this type of career path, of course, along with the risk / return that accompanies it. But some organizations and team leaders are more prone than others to foster disorganization and stress in their product launches. The put the FUN in dysfunction. I’ve heard stories about Chief level commercial officers in large organizations overruling decisions about the type of candy given out at trade show booths. One medical device company I work with elected to launch their product in the U.S. – including deploying a sales team – after getting CE mark approval in the EU but before getting FDA approval (it took another 18 months to get FDA clearance). Stories abound about pricing decisions that have derailed product launches, particularly in oncology and other markets that frequently introduce innovations where valid pricing models are difficult to find.

Pitfalls like these are common, of course, but how does this impact staffing and recruitment?

High-profile product launches are terrific for the recruiting process because the best way to attract great people is to offer clear opportunities for growth and development. As we know, nothing drives organizational growth like innovation and a robust product pipeline. But high-profile product launches can be very bad for long-term retention of talented employees. The build-up to a big launch often creates unreasonable expectations and if results over the first year fail to meet those expectations then the marketing team is often the first to be blamed. Depending on their personal resilience and the availability of opportunities elsewhere, these marketers may elect to jump ship rather than wait for a turn-around. The overall morale of the team drops and many people begin to believe that the grass is greener somewhere else, particularly if continued underperformance of the product is likely to result in a downsizing in the future.

Even successful launches can often breed attrition and turnover. Many marketing professionals join companies in order to get a high-profile launch on their resume. After a year or two post-launch they expect to be able to earn a promotion since they helped launch a successful product. The problem is that the company probably hired a large number of talented individuals in the run-up to the launch and people often feel resentment when they lose out to a peer on a promotional opportunity – so they leave.

The other issue that leads to high turnover rates shortly after a successful launch is good old fashioned burn-out. If the stress, frenetic pace and dysfunction of a big launch doesn’t abate within 6-12 months post-launch the marketing team is most likely going to experience turnover, even if the product is booming. Whether it’s excessive overnight travel, long hours at the office, or toxic team chemistry the talented people I know are only willing to put up with it for a limited amount of time. Most marketers understand and agree to the need for short-term pain in exchange for longer-term gain, but the pain will result in burn-out if it persists for more than a year.

In summary, big product launches are great for marketing professionals – except when they’re not. If you find yourself with a case of the Dysfunctional Product Launch Blues give me a call and we can discuss what to do about it.

Seasonality in the Job Market?

The Blogs of Dave Murphy: Seasonality in the Job Market?

It’s the 4th of July week and I’m camping in an RV park, “on holiday” in a good old fashioned family vacation. I generally schedule my time off to coincide with the vacation and travel schedules of my clients. It’s tough to have meetings, schedule interviews and do business when nobody is around. Just like planting season, tax season and football season, there is a seasonality in the job market that impacts the way employers and potential employees make decisions. Hiring managers and job seekers would be well served to recognize the trends so they can best invest time and money to meet their goals as efficiently as possible.

In addition to PTO schedules the timing of staffing decisions is also driven by an employer’s budgeting cycle. In the Med Tech and BioPharma industries, unless your primary customer is the U.S. government or you work for Medtronic, you probably run on a fiscal year that matches the calendar. In that case we generally see new headcount put in place in January of each year and a significant spike in hiring during the first five months of the calendar year. There are many large medical conferences held in May and June and things begin to slow down, and by July and August they can sometimes grind to a standstill. In the U.S. most employees are back on the job in late August and there is a burst of hiring activity between Labor Day and early December. The second half of December is typically dormant due to the holidays.

Why is this important for employers?

Hiring managers with urgent staffing needs recognize that the supply of qualified candidates who are interested in considering their job is nearing an all-time low. The U.S. unemployment rate is approaching the “transitional” level and in the medical industry in particular it’s extremely difficult to find “A Players” to key openings. Even unemployed candidates are able to be choosy and selective in this job market because they’re more confident they will have multiple offers to consider. We’ve seen a steep rise in the rate of counteroffers being extended and accepted, and candidates who accept job offers and then don’t show up on the start date because they continue to interview with another organization and accept another offer.

All of this means that that hiring managers must consider seasonality in planning for job creation and work force expansions. And even in adapting to unexpected backfills an employer must plan their interview process more thoughtfully in this labor market. You have to be ready and eager to interview qualified, interested candidates before you post a job or ask a recruiter to begin selling your opportunity in the marketplace. If you start too early and can’t move them along through the process at a reasonable pace you will build resentment among candidates and lose them to other, more nimble employers.

Check with the members of your interview team to get agreement on the decision-making process (including the need for consensus) and their travel schedule (work or personal) that will impact their ability to interview candidates. Candidates who are currently employed will generally be more available for calls and interviews between February–June and September–November, just like the interview team. It’s also a good idea to use Facetime or Skype more aggressively in other months to maintain candidate interest.

Why is this important for candidates?

For candidates who are currently employed and not in an “active” job search the issue of job market seasonality is not a significant problem. If you’re not planning to make a job change and are simply being opportunistic you can manage you schedule with or without employers and interview teams. What I generally see, however, is that when a candidate agrees to consider a particular opportunity and enter into an interview process he or she will become more inclined to consider other openings at the same time because they have gone through the process of updating their resume, brushing up on interview tips, and mentally preparing to make a job change. When you have multiple interview processes underway at the same time it’s very important to communicate that information to each of the employers, particularly in peak season, and be transparent about projected interview dates and your travel schedule and availability. You’re not being “pushy” when you tell an employer that you are moving along in another interview process and they may need to expedite their own process.

For active job seekers it’s more important to consider seasonal differences: your research, phone calls and emails should occur during those weeks and months of peak interview times so you can catch hiring managers when they are most available. For instance, if you decide to contact a GM of a business unit only two times because you don’t want to be a pest, make sure it’s during peak season rather than “off season.” In the interest of managing your own expectations, it’s important to understand that most employers post jobs online without considering the timing issues of the interview team, including their own. So you may apply to a posting for which you are highly qualified and get limited response, if any. It doesn’t mean that they are not interested in your qualifications – it may mean that they have not timed their process appropriately.

When a new job comes “open” I will often encourage employers to postpone the initiation of a search for candidates until the timing is right. It seems counter-intuitive in a candidate driven job market, but for best results all members of the hiring process – including the candidate – need to be ready to talk and make decisions in an expedited manner. Of course, there is a distinct difference between a job “opening” and a true business need that requires hiring a talented employee – but that is the subject of a different blog. As always, I encourage your comments and questions.

Video Recruiting and Video Resumes

The Blogs of Dave Murphy: Video Recruiting and Video Resumes

I think we are all in agreement that the methods by which we send and receive information has changed dramatically over the past ten years or so. Since we’re now all walking around with computers in our pockets it stands to reason that we’re going to communicate with each other differently, and much more frequently. The fact that there’s almost no incremental costs to sending emails, texts or web posts means we are now subjects to “information overload,” a term originally coined by Alvin Toffler in the pre-internet 1970 book Future Shock. It’s a state where we have difficulty understanding and making decisions about an issue when we have too much information about the issue, rather than too little. That difficulty gives rise to the need to TRUST the source of the information we’re getting more than ever, and like it or not we tend to base that trust on the personal characteristics of the communicator rather than on the content being communicated. And that’s where video technology comes in.

Now that award-winning movies, documentaries and TV shows are being made with inexpensive, highly accessible recording devices we have found ourselves in a new era where consumers of information often expect that information to be transmitted in a combination of moving pictures and sound. And at least for the time being that expectation is generally not being met in the world of recruiting and job seeking. Yes the use of Skype, Facetime and other such services have grown as important tools in the interview process, but in order to get to the point where people agree to take time to consider interviewing they first have to be persuaded to stop what they’re doing long enough to pay attention. That requires cutting through the information overload in a trustworthy, convenient and differentiated manner. It can be highly impactful to use brief video messages to communicate information about career opportunities as well as about candidates for important positions.

The bottom line is that people simply don’t want to read as much as they used to, and we can either embrace that notion or fight it. I believe that employers and employees who embrace it will be the winners in the evolving job market. First on the employer side: I work with hiring managers to craft a “search plan” to attract the most talented candidates with a pre-designated skill set, in the hopes that they will consider a new career opportunity. That means not only finding the right people who have those skills, but “tapping them on the shoulder” to get them to consider the opportunity. You have to develop trust in order to get someone to respond to that shoulder tap. One way to do that is through longevity in the industry, the “branding” of your reputation, and word-of-mouth referrals by trusted acquaintances – in fact, there is no substitute for that. That used to be the way employers and we recruiters relied exclusively to get call-backs from targeted prospects – “I’ve been around forever, you know me or someone that you trust knows me, so call me back.”

That method of recruiting worked great, and it still does. But now we have the option of adding video technology to raise that level of trust even higher, in an efficient, convenient method of communication. For every search I conduct I now create a one-minute video on my desktop where I describe the highlights of the career opportunity. The recipients of my messages more often than not get their information on their phone or handheld device, and it’s much easier to click one button and watch a video than it is to scroll through an email or job posting. They can get enough information to determine if they want to learn more, in which case we set up a call and I send them more complete information. (This is also easier on me because I don’t have to worry as much about my writing inadequacies . . .)

So if this works for recruiters and hiring managers, what about candidates and job applicants? They have an even greater obstacle to overcome in terms of the “noise” they have to cut through, in that each on-line job posting generates hundreds of unqualified applicants sending their resume in the hope that whoever wrote the posting didn’t really mean it when they listed the qualifications. On the candidate side of the job market, the use of “video resumes” is on the rise because of their ability to help people establish trust and to differentiate themselves from the hordes of other candidates for a particular job. Candidates can now create short video vignettes to replace their cover letter, which never gets read anyway, and in those messages they have the opportunity to explain their motivation and interests, and why they may be a fit for that particular job.

I’ve found that the most impactful candidate videos are those that are customized for a given opening, where relevant information can be added that’s not in the resume and may be important to the hiring manager for that opening. Examples include why you may be interested in making a job change, why you have made job changes in the past, and your interest in working for that specific company at that particular location and level (you can also include information about relocation and salary flexibility if appropriate). The link to the online video can either be embedded at the top of the resume or included in the email itself, and it’s a simple click for the hiring manager to see and hear the candidate’s story, as opposed to simply scanning the resume.

Websites like YouTube, Vimeo and others have made it simple to communicate our stories with the power of video and audio, and I don’t think we’re going back to other communication methods anytime soon. As these techniques become more common their power for differentiation will diminish of course, which is why we can’t rely on video alone for getting our message out. In fact, it’s more important than ever to consider supplementing the videos with “old school” ways of communicating for the very reason that they can be so unusual. For example, post-interview follow-up notes can be handwritten by candidates on Thank You cards and left with an office assistant before leaving the site. On the employer side, a nice hand-written welcome note from a hiring manager on a new employee’s first day can be very impactful in reinforcing the decision to take a job. The power of written correspondence sent via the US mail is often underestimated in business correspondence, and I’ve found that is helps in communicating the emotional element of a message.

Written correspondence is still crucial, and good writing abilities are among the hardest skills to find in the search for talented employees. But video technology as a core communication medium is here to stay. Because of its speed and efficiency video is an increasingly important tool for communicating information in the job market, but it also provides the opportunity to raise trust in a way that only face-to-face meetings can exceed. You don’t have to be a photogenic movie star or highly skilled method actor to make these short videos. You just need to be authentic and trustworthy, and willing to try something new. As always I welcome your comments and questions.

Talk to your recruiter about RBF

The Blogs of Dave Murphy: Talk to your recruiter about RBF

Resting Bitch Face. It’s a real thing – a scourge upon the land that ruins people’s perception of each other. Google it sometime to see some examples. Male or female, all ethnicities and ages – this is a global epidemic that Wikipedia defines as follows:

“Resting bitch face, also known as RBF or bitchy resting face, is a term for a facial expression (or lack thereof) which unintentionally appears angry, annoyed, irritated, or contemptuous. The concept has been studied by psychologists and may have psychological implications related to facial biases, gender stereotypes, human judgment, and decision making. The concept has also been studied by computer experts, utilizing a type of facial recognition system; they found that the condition is as common in males as in females, despite the gendered word “bitch” that is used to name this concept.”

What has this got to do with staffing decisions and career planning? Plenty. All day long I hear things like “not a fit,” “bad chemistry,” “didn’t click with him/her,” “don’t think I’d fit well in their culture.” It’s certainly true that behavioral traits like work ethic, prior performance results, and the words people use to ask or answer interview questions do matter. But there is a reason why we insist on live interviews rather than simply matching job descriptions to resumes, sending emails, or holding phone calls or Skype conferences. We want to see people, shake their hand and – often unknowingly – evaluate body language. And nothing drives body language more than facial expressions, so we must get educated about RBF and it’s ramifications throughout the job market and global economy. Let’s look at this plague in two ways: why candidate’s often don’t get job offers, and why they often don’t want to accept them.

First, on the candidate side of the equation: interviewees know they only have somewhere between 30 minutes and 2 hours of “face time” to make a good impression, and they can’t blow it. Successful candidates understand that the most important thing they need to communicate, in whatever way possible, is trust. “Trust me, Ms. Hiring Manager, that I will get the job done and exceed your expectations. I will view the problems that need solving through your eyes and take accountability to solve them, freeing you up for other things.” It’s very hard for an interviewer to trust someone who, when they are not speaking, has a facial expression that communicates that they are “angry, annoyed, irritated, or contemptuous.” Live interviews typically begin with the interviewer providing some background about the company, the job or themselves, giving the candidate the opportunity to listen and communicate with non-verbal cues. If the message being sent back is coming from a RBF then there’s going to be a problem.

Regarding the interviewer who suffers from RBF – the problem is more insidious. The reality is that many hiring managers WANT to project resting bitch face because their interview style is to screen out “unworthy” candidates. They believe they hold all the cards and that the candidates have to do all the selling in order to prove they deserve the opportunity to take the job, forgetting that the best candidates have many, many great opportunities in front of them to consider. The interrogation-style interviewer rarely gets the A Player on their team, but they generally don’t care because the company culture is fine with that. But what about the sincere manager striving to build and lead a world-class team? The most important thing they need to communicate is that they care about people on a personal level. The old leadership adage is that “nobody cares what you know until they know that you care.” Since the majority of time in a live, face-to-face interview is spent with the candidate answering questions and the interviewer listening, there is ample opportunity for RBF to creep out and cause the candidate to lose the sense that the person sitting there could possibly care about their personal goals, dreams and ambitions.

So what can be done?
Like any good 12-step program the first and most important action is to recognize and accept that there is problem. The first phase after RBF diagnosis is always the toughest. It usually includes shock, anger, denial, introspection, research and grudging acceptance. Then comes the hard work of prescriptive action, including many hours logged in front of the mirror conditioning those facial muscles so they can unconsciously communicate Resting Happy Face. On the other hand, you can simply forget about allowing the face to rest at all in an interview. Experts agree that the easiest technique is eyebrow control – if you want to convey a sense of trust or caring you may want to furrow the brow when you hear a particularly sensitive comment. Of course, high eyebrows along with an easy smile will endear the other person to you, provided it is not overdone. The bottom line is that those who suffer from RBF must work during the interview to keep that face moving!

There are countless remedies and techniques for treating RBF available online. Given the huge market potential I can foresee the day where a new wonder-drug is approved for the condition – perhaps a next-gen Botox or something similar. My own prediction is that RBF will become much more apparent and recognized as the scourge that it is, particularly when our very own President suffers from it. Perhaps Patient Advocacy Groups will be formed. I’m optimistic that the higher profile of the disease will increase research and funding for treatment options, and those of us suffering quietly will no longer live in the shadows. As always I welcome your comments and questions.

2016 Salary Analysis – Marketing Professionals in the Medical industry

Each year I analyze the results of self-reported salary information to get a current understanding of average compensation levels across the Biopharmaceutical and Medical Technology industry. I have the data broken out by four different levels of marketing positions and by company size. The intent is to provide select clients with real-time bench-marking information that can help their organization stay current as they attempt to attract and retain key employees. This is information provided by real marketing personnel working in the Drug and Med Tech industry in 2016, in contrast to syndicated data gathered from surveys of job-band salary ranges, which are not based on individual’s salaries and are typically published 6-12 months after they are reported.

The four levels of marketing positions I’ve analyzed are:
1. Product Managers, Associate Product Managers or other titles assigned to personnel with less than five years of upstream, pipeline planning or downstream marketing experience
2. Sr. Product Managers, Group Product Managers or other titles assigned to personnel with five or more years of marketing experience who are at the highest level of individual contributor and working in a role that is not intended to have direct reports.
3. First-line Marketing Managers, Associate Directors or Directors. These are people who have or will have direct reports assigned to them.
4. Senior Directors, Vice Presidents or other titles of personnel who lead the marketing function of an organization, and are most often managers of managers. These positions do not include Sales, Business Development, Managed Care or other functions that typically report into the C Suite or Sr. VP level.

Employers are defined as “Large” if they generate 1B or more in annual revenue and / or have more than 5000 employees. This base salary analysis does not consider bonuses or equity packages, which are generally more comprehensive in smaller and mid-sized organizations than in larger ones.

Results – Biopharmaceutical Industry

Marketing Level I
Associate Product Managers, Product Managers and other junior-level, individual contributors with fewer than five years of marketing experience: The average base salary for Level I marketers in 2016 was $115,200. Among large employers the average was $119,705, and among small and mid-size employers the average was $105,625.
Marketing Level II
Sr. Product Managers, Product Managers and personnel with five or more years of marketing experience who are senior-level, individual contributors and working in a role that is not intended to have direct reports. The average base salary for Level II marketers in 2016 was $143,163. Among large employers the average was $147,648, and among small and mid-size employers the average was $133,944.
Marketing Level III
First-line managers, including Group Marketing Managers, Associate Directors and Directors – these are marketing managers who have or will have direct reports assigned to them. The average base salary for Level III marketers in 2016 was $176,294. Among large employers the average was $185,304, and among small and mid-size employers the average was $168,892.
Marketing Level IV
Senior Directors, Vice Presidents or other personnel who lead the marketing function of an organization. They are not responsible for Sales, Business Development, Managed Care or other functions reporting into the Chief level. The average base salary for Level IV marketers in 2016 was $224,842. Among large employers the average was $258,833, and among small and mid-size employers the average was $209,153.

Results – Medical Technology Industry (Medical Device and Diagnostics)

Marketing Level I
Associate Product Managers, Product Managers and other junior-level, individual contributors with fewer than five years of marketing experience: The average base salary for Level I marketers in 2016 was $105,593. Among large employers the average was $114,861, and among small and mid-size employers the average was $98,920.
Marketing Level II
Sr. Product Managers, Product Managers and personnel with five or more years of marketing experience who are senior-level, individual contributors and working in a role that is not intended to have direct reports. The average base salary for Level II marketers in 2016 was $138,082. Among large employers the average was $145,794, and among small and mid-size employers the average was $132,405.
Marketing Level III
First-line managers, including Group Marketing Managers, Associate Directors and Directors – these are marketing managers who have or will have direct reports assigned to them. The average base salary for Level III marketers in 2016 was $169,147. Among large employers the average was $174,364, and among small and mid-size employers the average was $163,042.
Marketing Level IV
Senior Directors, Vice Presidents or other personnel who lead the marketing function of an organization. They are not responsible for Sales, Business Development, Managed Care or other functions reporting into the Chief or Sr. VP level. The average base salary for Level IV marketers in 2016 was $214,501. Among large employers the average was $233,555, and among small and mid-size employers the average was $204,412.

ANALYSIS
As in prior years there was a 30-40K gap in the average base salaries from one level to the next (the gap is wider at higher levels, as would be expected). Across all levels salaries have risen by 2-3% above 2015, which is a slightly lower growth rate than the prior year, and the lower level marketers enjoyed a greater increase than those at higher levels. There continues to be a gap between base salaries paid by large-cap companies versus their smaller counterparts. The percentage gap between large and small organizations is greater at the Director and VP levels than at lower levels (on the other hand, equity packages at those levels are much richer in smaller companies than in larger ones).

Despite ongoing contraction and layoffs, marketers in the Biopharma industry continued to earn a slightly higher base salary than their counterparts in the Med Tech space, with a 5-8% difference across the various levels.

Overall, base salaries continued to trend upward in the BioPharma and Medical Technology industries in 2016, which is consistent with the employment and new job creation rates reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.