Acid Test For Excellence in Crisis Leadership

Posted on April 13, 2020 by Tapan Ray

On April 12, 2020 – in the morning of the day 19 of the national lockdown, India’s total number of Coronavirus positive cases reached 8,504 with 289 deaths. The country’s trajectory is reportedly steeper than most Asian peers, such as Singapore, Japan, and Indonesia. Incidences of new infections and deaths are also rising faster. The report also highlighted a possible link between number of tests conducted and the number of confirmed cases across the States. The aggregated impact of Covid19 outbreak has created an unprecedented health, social and economic calamity, changing everybody’s life – now and beyond.

However, going by Prime Minister Modi’s announcement on March 24, 2020, the national lockdown to contain the pandemic should continue till April 14, 2020. But, the above scenario is creating a huge dilemma within almost all Coronavirus crisis management leadership in the States, with the final decision resting upon the Prime Minister of India. Meanwhile, on April 09, 2020, Odisha government decided to extend the lockdown until April 30, followed by Punjab, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Telengana on April 11, 2020. However, all will get to know India’s decision in this regard for the rest of India, as you read this piece today.

The top leaders of Asia, Europe and American continents are handling the grave situation differently, with a varying degree of success, so far. Everybody is watching different world leaders in action – each trying hard to gain control over the unprecedented crisis, making it an acid test for excellence in Crisis Leadership.

Three different types of needs for the country:

As I see, three specific types of needs of three specific classes of people in the social milieu, are emerging in India:

Only need is to save life from the disease, with not much problem in procuring other essential requirements – having enough wherewithal to pull through the critical period, better than most others.
Strong need exists to save life, but facing tough challenges in arranging for essential needs for daily living.
Need to save life, but feel desperate for the means of livelihood – to protect family and defendants from hunger, in a seemingly uncertain future.

In the current situation, while trying to contain the spread of pandemic effectively, the sufferings of especially, the second and third group, as stated above, also need to be addressed, ‘and this is much aided by a participatory democracy.’

An acid test for crisis leadership at the top:

The situation isn’t just a war against Covid19, but much beyond that. The Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen at Harvard University explained the situation so well in an article, published on April 08, 2020. He lucidly illustrated, that the needs of people in a natural calamity, such as Coronavirus caused a pandemic, are different from a conventional war – against an enemy country. Desirable leadership qualities are also significantly different.

As Professor Sen wrote, while managing a crisis situation during a conventional war, ‘a leader can use top-down power to order everyone to do what the leader wants – with no need for consultation.’ But, managing a crisis during a natural calamity, a leader should demonstrate skills for a ‘participatory governance and alert public discussion.’ Listening to public discussion makes the top leadership understand what needs to be done by the policy makers.

Another paper, titled “Steering Through the Storm,” published in the ‘People + Strategy’, also reiterated the same with different words. It emphasized, “during a crisis, like natural calamity, leaders should engage actively with their constituents whenever possible, distinguishing critical issues from less pressing needs, communicating risks, and maintaining readiness. Throughout the crisis, leaders should remain accessible and open to new sources of information, and take care of their own needs when necessary and appropriate.”

How different countries are demonstrating crisis leadership:

Like other countries, crisis leadership is now clearly visible even in India – right from 1 day ‘people’s curfew’, to the announcement of 21-day national lockdown for Covid19 outbreak. An interesting article, published in Forbes on March 10, 2020, deliberated on what China, Italy and the United States teach us about crisis leadership. These examples give a sense of how different countries, facing similar but country-specific problems with Covid19, reacted with remarkable ‘different approaches and results.’ I am paraphrasing below some recent illustrations on crisis leadership, as captured in the above paper:

China: China was the first country to face this calamity beginning in Wuhan of the Hubei province. With command and control leadership and decisive action China was able to immediately to garner and consolidate all its resources for an aggressive response. The World Health Organization called it as, “perhaps the most ambitious, agile and aggressive disease containment effort in history.” This includes closing down manufacturing sectors, sharing information widely, executing mass testing and quarantining millions of people. The Chinese government made the decision to absorb a significant economic cost to contain COVID-19 rather than potentially lose control and the result was effective - the number of new cases has steadily decreased in weeks’ time.

However, the downside of this type of leadership is the possible erosion of trust in the system. As the Atlantic documented, local Chinese officials reported the Covid19 outbreak to the federal government weeks after it began. They also understated the extent of the disease spread, until whistle-blowers stepped forward – and were subsequently punished. This delay probably cost China valuable time in containing the initial outbreak.

This demonstrates, under a command and control ‘crisis leadership’, when people are afraid to tell the truth and discouraged from speaking up, critical information may not reach leadership, until the problem intensifies, the paper added. That said, whether the COVID19 outbreak may have been contained earlier under different leadership conditions, cannot be concluded for sure, at least, in this case. However, official data release now shows more than doubling of new Coronavirus cases to 99 in Mainland China, on April 11, 2020. Moreover, newly reported asymptomatic Coronavirus cases also nearly doubled to 63 on the same day. Hence, the fire has still not been doused. The crisis lingers.

Italy: The catastrophic impact of Covid19 in Italy, helps identify some avoidable areas in ‘crisis leadership’. With rapidly changing and inconsistent messaging, the leaders possibly created panic and distrust among people of all kinds. The top leadership seems to have underestimated the potential spread of the virus, and was not acting in coordination with various groups and stakeholders to contain it, initially.

It happened, despite Italy is a democratic country, unlike China. But, the country, apparently, did not comply with the robust and critical ‘crisis leadership’ norm of fact-based ‘participatory governance and alert public discussion’, as discussed above. This reconfirms that ‘crisis leadership’ must be very careful in saying something they will end up contradicting later, while handling, especially a social calamity, like Covid19 outbreak.

The United States: With the fire of Covid19 outbreak spreading fast in the United States, one finds again, some basics of crisis management norms were missing in the top leadership of the oldest and a robust democracy of the world. Instead, President Trump demonstrated ‘a tendency to rely heavily on his inner circle rather than subject matter experts and to state opinions as facts.’ The President also contradicted experts on his own task force attempting to educate the public, most notably by consistently overstating the scientifically acknowledged timeline to create a vaccine and the preventive medicine combo. He also questioned the reported fatality rate of the virus.

This type of ‘crisis leadership’ is likely to fail in inspiring trust and confidence with the masses, the article concluded. This is evidenced by the current status of the country. The lethal firepower of Covid19 is still hitting the United States very hard, against all its might to fight the invisible enemy garnering all its resources and possibly taking more lives than what it lost, as on date, while fighting all its wars. As on April 11, 2020, the death toll from Coronavirus in the United States eclipsed Italy’s for the highest in the world, surpassing 20,000 marks.

Now let me focus on India, with my own assessment about the ‘crisis leadership’ while responding to this crisis, of course, initially.

India:

To get a perspective of Covid19 spread in South Asia on a relative yardstick, let’s look at the following Government released figures, as quoted in the Reuters report on April 08, 2020:

Country	Ind	Pak	Afghan	Sri Lanka	Bangladesh	Maldives	Nepal	Bhutan
Cases	5274	4072	444	189	218	19	9	5
Death	149	58	14	7	20	0	0	0

On April 11, 2020, the World Bank estimated, the ‘worst economic slump in South Asia in 40 years.’ Further, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and other three smaller nations, with 1.8 billion people and thickly populated cities, although have so far reported relatively few Coronavirus cases, could be the next hotspots for Covid19.

With this, let us look at the Covid19 narrative being unfolded in India, so far. In a lighter vein, following the interesting events with ‘sound’ and ‘light’, the ‘camera’ of time has indeed captured a commendable display of high quality ‘crisis leadership’ in India. Especially, under the given circumstances prevailing at that juncture. The leadership approach fits so well into one of the most critical requirements of crisis management – ‘participatory governance and alert public discussion.’

Even, some seemingly pointless events for some, at the end of the day, did raise morale of many in the fight against Covid19 outbreak, besides their level of participation and involvement in this crisis. Whether or not it is purely due to the personal charisma of the Prime Minister and his huge followings, also doesn’t matter much, as the point is, what really happened, instead of why it happened.

Besides, right from the declaration of ‘Peoples Curfew’ of March 22, 2020 to 21-day national lockdown, the Prime Minister has involved the State Chief Ministers, but also the leaders of opposition parties. Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) is also visible in the forefront. The net result is the support that the Prime Minster is getting from all, despite hardship – an epitome of ‘crisis leadership,’ as on date.

Thus, the beginning has been laudable, especially when India had no option but to enforce a lockdown, in one form or the other, without having enough testing kits, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for healthcare manpower and required health care infrastructure for quarantine or isolation of people. Let me explain this point with a very recent example.

According to a recent report, Covid19 test guidelines presumed that most patients in India acquired the virus from their travels abroad, or from someone who travelled abroad. Accordingly, with a limited number of kits, tests were conducted to zero in on these patients, isolating and quarantining them, to curb the spread of the virus. very focused with lesser requirements of the testing kits.

However, the data compiled by ICMR from random Coronavirus tests on patients with severe respiratory diseases, indicate that 38 percent of Covid19 patients with no travel or contact history have contracted the virus. On April 10, 2020, the Government said that the testing has now been increased to 16000 from earlier 5000-6000 people per day. This raises the vital question: has Covid19 outbreak in India has progressed or progressing from stage 2 to stage 3 of the outbreak, or has the community spread of the disease begun, the last and final stage being stage 4 – the scary virtually uncontrolled Coronavirus outbreak? Alarmingly, as has been widely reported, even on April 12, 2020: ‘Coronavirus in India: Several targets missed, still no sign of rapid testing kits.’ Currently, ‘India ranks extremely low in the Coronavirus-hit countries list based on the number of tests done per million population.’

Thus, the declaration of 21-day national lockdown on March 24, 2020, at the early stage of the Coronavirus outbreak in India was an unprecedented decision. Besides, containing the rapid disease spread, it gave India a small time-space to prepare itself – with more testing kits, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for healthcare manpower and adequate number of high-quality – isolation, quarantine and treatment facilities, equipped the disease specific requirements, such as, ventilators.

No matter what, the decision for a 21-day nationwide complete lockdown, giving priority to life over livelihood was a tough call to take for any leader. It indeed was a part of the critical test for excellence in ‘crisis leadership,’ at that point of time.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, as the saying goes ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating,’ the acid test for excellence in ‘crisis leadership’, obviously, will be based on the quality of outcomes and the time it will take. This will include multiple key factors, such as, the speed of health, social and economic turnaround of a country, which is sustainable. Nevertheless, the crisis is far from being over – anywhere in the world, just yet, and the jury is still out.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

While Pharma Leadership Change This Atypical Skill Counts

Posted on July 1, 2019 by Tapan Ray

Effective September 01, 2019, the global pharma major Sanofi will have a new CEO, as the present CEO retires attaining his retirement age of 65 years. This appears to be a mandatory announcement from the company, as is required during the top leadership change in any large and listed organization.

However, there is something novel, as well, in this announcement, especially when specific qualities, skills and experience of the new CEO were highlighted by the company’s Board of Directors. According to Sanofi Press Release, the new CEO – Paul Hudson “has proven his strategic vision, his strong leadership and his ability to achieve the greatest challenges, particularly in terms of innovation and digital transformation.”

Among the stated experience and skills, the one that appeared atypical to me, is the experience of digital transformation, particularly in the position of the CEO of a global pharma major. I In this article, I shall, therefore, explore, why knowledge and experience in this atypical skill is gradually becoming critically important for pharma leadership positions, at all levels.

Why is the need for digital transformation of pharma business?

According to the Internet Trends Report 2019 by Mary Meeker, at 3.8 billion internet users, more than half the world’s population is now online and it is growing. This number would obviously include patients.

As we know, the core purpose of pharma business is to offer a unique patient experience during any disease treatment process. And, the expectations of which from Internet-savvy individuals will be significantly more for various related reasons.

To achieve this objective, drug players would always require to be in sync with customers’ perceptions, expectations and aspirations, among others. Moreover, it’s also not ‘one size fits all’ type of a solution. These will significantly vary for different patient groups, so are the processes of engagement with them – based virtually on real-time information.

Interestingly, the core purpose of digital transformation is also to facilitate this process, with a great amount of precision. The entire process of creating a unique patient experience, involves generation of a massive amount of customized data, customize analysis of which is done through sophisticated analytics, and thereafter, translating and using them as key strategic business inputs, on an ongoing basis. Traditional organizational methods, systems and processes are incapable to deliver the same. Hence arises the crucial need of digital transformation of the organization, across the board.

The transformation is not just about software, hardware and data:

That said, it is also essential to realize that digital transformation is not just about software, high-tech hardware, mobile apps and sophisticated wearables and data. These are, of course, some of the vital tools – used while transforming a company into battle readiness to create and provide a unique customer experience.

Such unique experience for each customer should cover all touchpoints, spanning across – before, during and after treatment with the company’s medication. This, in turn, helps generate an increasing number of prescriptions from doctors, which otherwise would not have been possible, following the conventional means.

Why this atypical skill is in demand today?

Like any other transformation process within an organization, digital transformation should necessarily be driven by the company CEO, having adequate experience in this area. Even the Board of Directors of many pharma players believes that such a CEO can facilitate the process faster and more effectively. Hence, the demand for this atypical skill is increasing, also for a pharma CEO position, besides leaders in various functional areas, as it is being considered as pivotal to achieve the core purpose of a pharma business, in the digital world.

Thus, if a CEO doesn’t properly understand, how the digital world operates with increasing number of visitors in the cyberspace and convinced about its relevance for business excellence, the organization would ultimately lose its competitive edge. One may, therefore, question, did the need for this atypical skill also arise during the selection of the new CEO of Sanofi?

Is this atypical skill for a new CEO more important now?

The answer, I reckon, could be both, ‘probably yes’ and also ‘no’.

‘Probably yes’, mostly because, being an uncommon skill for a pharma CEO, so far, it arrested the attention of many while reading ‘Sanofi Press Release’, for the appointment of their new CEO. Nevertheless, Sanofi is not the first pharma company placing so much of importance on digital transformation, especially for the key leadership positions. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) of February 18, 2018, the CEO of Novartis said: “We need to become a focused medicines company that’s powered by data science and digital technologies.”

Why it is so important for a pharma CEO?

The AT Kearney paper titled, “New Medicine for a New World – Time for Pharma to Dive into Digital,” also captured that an increasing number of pharma customers are now getting engaged and have started interacting in the digital space, more than ever before. This trend is fast going north – becoming an ‘in-thing’ of the industry, as it were. But more probably to be seen as trendy or display that they are also in it, by ‘dipping a toe in the digital waters.’ Whereas, ‘it’s time to take the plunge,’ as the paper cautions them.

‘Plunging into the digital water,’ doesn’t mean sending people to some external training program – with the word ‘digital’ prominently featuring as the course objective. It means bringing out ‘digital transformation’ of the entire organization, spearheaded by the CEO. The leadership of each functional area would then implement from the same playbook, with a structured and custom-made plan designed specifically to achieve the vision, mission, goals and values of the company.

We have recent examples of, at least, two top global pharma majors taking a plunge in the digital water to make the digital transformation of the organization a reality. The key purpose of the same, is to create a unique customer experience, being on the same page with them, in more effective ways, for business excellence. To move in this direction, the organization must imbibe the non-negotiable principle – ‘digital first,’ across the organization.

Only the CEO can decide ‘digital first’ as guiding organizational principle:

None other than the CEO of a drug company, can decide that ‘digital first’ will be the guiding principle of the company, across all the functional areas of the business. As the above paper articulates, it ‘should be explicitly incorporated into core business processes.’ It further says: ‘Top management must challenge any parts of the business that have not explicitly considered the opportunities from digital in their plans.’

Functional leaders to be in sync with digital transformation:

All in the pharma organization, across all functions, must work for the end consumer of any pharma business – the patients. Every single employee in the company should strive delighting them with the company’s products and services, at every touchpoints, during their quest for relief from illnesses. As I said before, this is the single most important factor that determines not just the pace of growth of a drug company, but help enhance its reputation, too. It goes without saying, its ultimately the patients who are playing a catalytic role in the digital transformation of an organization.

It is essential for the CEO to make sure that entire corporate, functional and even departmental leadership teams are in tune with the need of digital transformation of the organization. Despite the detail explanation, if some remain unconvinced about the rationale behind the transformation of the core business process, the right leader should assume the responsibility.

This is because, even with one loose knot at the leadership level in this area, the entire objective can seriously get thwarted – down the line. Such changes, as, if and when required, can be achieved in various different ways, not through attrition alone. For example, by encouraging them to work with members of his peer group who can set good examples to emulate.

Brand promotion to physicians will still remain as important:

In tandem, no company should lose sight of the fact that their face-to-face interaction with physicians, will continue to play an important role in brand promotion. Primarily because, doctors and hospitals help patients to get desired solace from ill-health by prescribing recommended medicines, and consequently, will keep prevailing as an integral part of the pharma marketing process, supported directly or indirectly by every employee in the company.

The key challenge in digital transformation:

The key challenge in the digital transformation of a pharma company is broadly possible inflexible or a rigid mindset of some of its leaders. This is generally fueled by the fear of moving out of their respective comfort zones – rather than resources and expertise required to make the technology put to use. A well-running-business with a grand idea for the future, will generally be able to garner necessary resources and other wherewithal, without much problem.

All pharma leaders should always consider themselves as an important solution for the future success of the organization, Otherwise, he or she may be construed as a part of the problem and a hindrance in achieving the corporate goal and should make way for the capable ones, in this area. Hence, selecting leaders with the right spirit to make digital transformation effective, is so critical for the CEO.

To commence this journey, the leaders may either be willing to acquire the experience of a disruptive digital transformation, guided by the domain experts or may be recruited from outside having the necessary experience. Collective and well-coordinated steps towards this transformation can neither be tentative, nor should it commence without having the right leader at the right place with required will and experience.

Digital players entering into health space with game changing ideas:

Pharma players should also note, how the big technology companies, such as, Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon, besides many startups, are trying to create space for themselves in the health care arena. Several of them are also trying to reinvent health care with zest, much beyond what traditional drug companies could even envisage, till recently.

The digital transformation of the organization would help drug players to align the company’s business model with the tech companies in those specific areas to reap a rich harvest. More opportunities will also unfold – either to collaborate with them for targeted projects or moving into the tech space with well-calibrated measures, for business synergy. Without digital transformation of business, either facing such competition or benefitting from the available opportunities, will be challenging for drug companies.

Conclusion:

In the digital world, while patients are emerging as a key driver of change in the health care space, traditional pharma operational systems, including sales and marketing are likely to give a diminishing return on investment. Although, many drug companies can sense this ongoing metamorphosis, several of them are still wondering how to go about it. Moreover, to test the ‘digital water’, some of them have started converting several traditional operational methods, systems and processes in the digital format, as well. Yet, are unable to fathom, why such efforts are not clicking – leading to a quantum increase in the operational efficiency – in pursuit of excellence.

The good news is, global pharma organizations, such as, Sanofi and Novartis, besides several others, have realized that incremental performance improvements with small tweaking here or there, across the organization, aren’t just enough. The corporation needs to move towards a holistic digital transformation, spearheaded by its CEO, having experience in this process. This new breed of pharma CEOs, well-supported by his team of leaders, fostering a burning desire to produce pace setting results, can usher in this ‘disruptive’ transformation. Because, they realize, traditional pharma operational systems, when tempered through the fire of the digital transformation process, can yield game changing outcomes for the organization. The entire process, as it comes to fruition, helps delivering greater customer value, creating a unique customer experience – similar to what customers want – on an ongoing basis.

In fine, strategic intervention of this genre, initiated by the CEO and cascading down the organizational hierarchy, creates a whole new patient-centric outcome, which is much more than what a company can get through re-engineering the operational processes. Hence, especially the young mangers of date, may wish to note note that during virtually every leadership transition, this atypical skill is now likely count much more than ever before – with an ascending trend.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Trees Die From The Top: Apt For Pharma Leadership Too?

Posted on October 22, 2018 by Tapan Ray

The Management Guru of all-time – Peter F. Drucker once said: “The spirit of an organization is created from the top… If an organization is great in spirit, it is because the spirit of its top people is great.” As “Trees die from the top”, no one should ever become a strategist unless he or she is willing to have his or her character serve as a model for subordinates – Drucker emphasized.

Decades after this assertion from Drucker, meant for management practitioners, it is discernible even today how irrefutable these axioms are. In the contemporary times, as well, particularly when reality bites a company hard, being caught on the wrong side of ‘generally acceptable’ ethics, value and compliance standards.

While zeroing in to pharma, soundbites usually generated at that time, especially from the top echelon of the management, seem to hint that employees down the rung are responsible for such misdeeds, besides, of course, the legacy factor.

At this moment of truth, it is also not unusual for them to romancing the utopia, as it were. Senior management comes out with several ideas, which are squeaky clean in terms of optics. Some of them also talk about introducing behavior metric on ethics and values in employee performance appraisal before releasing any performance related pay out. In this article, I shall focus on this leadership issue in view of some latest developments in this area.

The latest developments:

Let me now come straight to the latest developments in this area, as I see around.

“Novartis links bonuses to ethics in bid to rebuild reputation” – was a headline of Reuters on September 18, 2018. It reported: “Swiss drug maker Novartis has revealed its employees only get a bonus if they meet or exceed expectations for ethical behavior as it seeks to address past shortcomings that have damaged its reputation.”

Some interesting points stand out from this report on the ownership of such alleged malpractices. These reconfirm that the reasons for the same, including the repeated allegations of such nature, are being passed on to others by the top management. For example:

To past practices or the legacy factor, even if the current CEO has been a part of that corporate environment, since long.
To employees responsible down the line, and a new system is being adopted to address the issue.

In this case, as Reuters reports: “Chief Executive Vas Narasimhan has made strengthening the Swiss drug maker’s ethics culture a priority after costly bribery scandals or legal settlements in South Korea, China and the United States.”

Interestingly, as reported by the media, “the company was also this year embroiled in a political controversy over payments it made to U.S. President Donald Trump’s ex-attorney.” Previously, even in the clinical trial area, Japanese authorities, reportedly “uncovered serious misconduct during a trial of its leukemia drug, Tasigna.”

As I said above, in response to such incidents, the General Counsel of Novartis, reportedly expressed: “This allows us to look at the behavior metric before any money leaves Novartis and catch potential misconduct before there is any risk to our reputation.” The official further added, “You can expect us to continue focusing on resolving the legacy issues that we read about in the press, ensuring we address any remaining underlying behaviors.”

Such steps not taken for the first time by a pharma company:

EvenGlaxoSmithKline tried something akin in the past.

“GSK scraps sales rep targets after scandal,” was the headline of December 17, 2013 edition of the Financial Times. It reported: “GlaxoSmithKline is to scrap individual sales targets for its commercial staff as it seeks to repair its image and reform working practices in the wake of allegations in China that its staff paid officials up to $500m in bribes. The move comes amid concerns over aggressive marketing across the pharmaceutical industry and follows a series of damaging regulatory probes leading to a record $ 3bn fine in the US last year.”

However, later on GlaxoSmithKline, reportedly “altered the plan when its sales began to suffer in the world’s largest market.”

Where is the real issue lying?

As“PwC‘s 21st CEO Survey: Preparing for disruption” found, 71 percent of CEOs surveyed said that their organizations face greater pressure to deliver business results in less time.

There isn’t an iota of doubt, I reckon, that pharma CEOs are under constant performance pressure from the investors and other stakeholders to deliver expected financial results. This makes them keep their eyes primarily glued on to the grindstone for churning out expected profits from the business. This also means that they expect management efforts to be generally directed to deliver ‘values’ at the least possible cost.

On the other hand, the same PwC survey findings reiterated that with rising drug costs, the demand for the drug companies to demonstrate the treatment efficacy, is increasing by manifold. Thus, “to remain competitive, Big Pharma will have to do things faster (like drug development) and cheaper for the patient, add more value for the same money, and become more proactive partners with patients and doctors in both wellness and cure” - one of the findings of this study emphasized.

It is quite common for most large to medium sized pharma companies to have in place a well-articulated organizational ‘ethics, compliance and values’, together with requisite checks and balances in the form of rigorous rules, regulations and other guidelines.

Most often these adorn the respective websites too, for public knowledge. The question, therefore, surfaces what could then possibly go wrong in the organization and where exactly does the real issue lie, while effectively managing the organizational growth?

“Non-compliance – A serious challenge to growth”:

Serious malpractices and their related fallout in pharma business – not just in marketing, but clinical trials, manufacturing, quality assurance and other areas, are not usually due to any lack of requisite processes or expertise. These are generally serious consequences of non-compliance of various organizational norms. At times, with the indirect support of senior management, or senior management keeps their eyes closed on such non-compliances, under demanding obligation for delivering expected financial results and business growth.

Tweaking areas, such as employee performance-incentive norms, as happened in the cases of GSK or Novartis, can’t fetch a long-lasting solution in such a situation, as I see it. Nonetheless, the survey report findings of Deloitte, titled “Non-compliance – A serious challenge to growth,” are interesting to get a sense of the reasons behind the same.

Key reasons for non-compliance:

The Deloitte report identifies some key contributors to malpractices and non-compliance in the pharma sector, indicating the percentage of survey respondents involved against each, as follows:

Lack of an efficient internal control/ compliance system: 61 percent
Weak regulatory enforcement / action taken against fraudsters: 55 percent
Inadequate utilization of technology tools available to identify red flags: 45 percent
Lack of a zero-tolerance approach towards malpractice and regulatory non-compliance: 45 percent
Inadequate due diligence on employees/ third party associates: 36 percent
Unrealistic targets/goals linked to monetary compensations: 33 percent
Senior management override of controls: 24 percent
Inadequate oversight by the Board/ Audit Committee: 06 percent

As I mentioned before, most key contributors to malpractice and non-compliance point towards a lack of senior management efficiency in internal controls, systems, and “inadequate utilization of technology tools available to identify red flags.” Curiously, no one mentions about the requirements for any fresh measures or systems to curb such incidents, in the future.

Just tweaking the present system may not help:

Just for changing the optics, tweaking the present system often doesn’t help. Many similar instances in the past, such as GSK’s example, as cited above, would vindicate this point. In the GSK case, at least, it’s the then CEO – Sir Andrew Witty expectedly realized that ‘unrealistic targets/goals linked to monetary compensations’ lead to such corruptions.

But total delinking of the core responsibility of any sales staff, namely ‘generation of top-level numbers both in volume and value’, with performance incentive, could throw some future challenges. Similar reason, presumably prompted GSK altering the plan when its sales began to suffer, at a later date.

Similarly, Novartis is, reportedly introducing a new behavioral metric as qualifying criteria for its employees to earn bonuses or incentives. Intriguingly, despite the existence of rigorous rules, regulations, guidelines and associated punitive provisions for not complying with the company ethics and values for a long-time, malpractices are still being reported today.

Thus, I wonder, how will an additional system of similar nature prevent recurrence of such incidents in the future? Anyway, only the future will tell whether a tweaking of this nature in the present system that did not work in the past, will work in this particular case effectively.

Conclusion:

The reasons for less than adequate internal controls of an organization, I reckon, fall squarely on the senior management, especially for repeat offences. Passing the blame to employees down the line or tweaking their performance appraisal system by introducing a ‘behavioral metric’, is likely to be short term, finger-pointing on the legacy factor notwithstanding.

On the contrary, these may likely to be construed as manifestations of knee-jerk reactions, and not so well-thought-out strategic measures. Neither do such repeated malpractices demonstrate a great spirit of the organization, nor do these evince astute leadership qualities of its top management.

Coming back to where I started from, quoting what the management guru Peter Drucker once said: “The spirit of an organization is created from the top… If an organization is great in spirit, it is because the spirit of its top people is great.” He also reiterated, no one should ever become a strategist unless he or she is willing to have his or her character serve as a model for subordinates This is certainly not the situation for those pharma players mired with alleged malpractices, repeatedly – not just in marketing, but in other operational areas too.

As the good old saying goes: “trees die from the top,” so is also an organization when its senior management lacks a moral compass on ethics, compliance and values. Considering what is being often reported on business malpractices within the drug industry, isn’t the saying equally apt for pharma leadership, as well?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Organic and Inorganic Growth Strategy For Sustainable Business Excellence

Posted on April 30, 2018 by Tapan Ray

For an enthusiast, witnessing any organization growing consistently, is indeed exhilarating. This becomes even more interesting at a time when challenges and frequent surprises in the business environment become a new normal. A robust short, medium and long growth strategy turns out to be a necessity for sustaining the business excellence over a long period of time. This is applicable even to the pharma players in India.

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an organization usually assumes the role of chief architect of this strategy, which needs to be subsequently approved by the Board of Directors of the company concerned, collectively. The Board holds the CEO, who ultimately carries the can, accountable to deliver the deliverables in creating the desired shareholder value.

Two basic types of growth strategies:

Based on the CEO’s own experience, and also considering the expectations of the Board of Directors, together with the investors, the CEO opts for either of these two following types of basic growth strategies, or a mix of these two in varying proportions:

Organic growth: Growing the business through company’s own pursued activities, or all growth strategies sans Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) or by any other means not external to the organization.
Inorganic growth: Growing the business through M&A or takeovers.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with either of these two types of basic growth strategies, or their mix in varying proportions. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that with the basic ‘Organic’ growth plan, the companies, or rather their CEOs have a greater degree of sustainable control in various critical areas. These often include, retaining senior management focus on the organizational core strength for sustainable excellence, or even maintaining the organizational culture and people management style, without any possible conflict in these areas.

In this article, I shall explore different aspects of these two basic growth strategies for sustainable business excellence. To illustrate the point better, I shall draw upon examples from two large but contrasting pharma companies. Let me begin this discussion with the following question:

When does a company choose predominantly inorganic growth path?

Its answer has been well articulated in an article of the Harvard Business Review (HBR). It says: “High-growth companies become low growth all the time. Many CEOs accept that as an inevitable sign that their businesses have matured, and so they stop looking internally for big growth. Instead, they become serial acquirers of smaller companies or seek a transformative acquisition of another large business, preferably a high-growth one.”

That said, none can deny that the short to medium term growth of a company following M&A is much faster and its market share and size become much larger than any comparable organizations pursuing the ‘Organic Growth’ path. Thus, more often than not, such initiatives create a ‘domino effect’, especially in the pharma industry, across the world.

Inorganic growth and key management challenges:

The short and medium-term boost in organizational performance post M&A, comes with its complexities in meeting similar expectations of the Company Board, shareholders and the investors, over a long period of time. This is besides all other accompanying issues, such as people related and more importantly in setting the future direction of the company. The cumulative impact of all this, propels the CEO to go all out for a similar buying spree. When it doesn’t materialize, as was expected, both the Board and the CEO are caught in a catch 22 situation. As mentioned earlier, I shall illustrate this point, with the following recent example covering some important areas.

The examples:

“Please don’t go, Ian Read. That’s the message Pfizer’s board of directors has made loud and clear to the almost-65-year-old CEO, who could very well retire with a $15.7 million pension package.” This is what appeared in an international media report on March 16, 2018.

Analyzing the current challenges faced by the company, the media report interpreted the indispensability of Ian Read in an interesting way. It reported: “The pharma giant considers Read the most qualified person to steer the company through a host of challenges, from oncology trial disappointments to investor pressure to make a big acquisition.” Investors are also, reportedly, sending clear signals to the CEO about the tough road ahead.

Thus, Ian Read “who turns 65 in May, also must remain CEO through at least next March and not work for a competitor for a minimum of two years after that to be eligible,” reported Bloomberg on March 16, 2018. It is interesting to note at this point that Mr. Read has been the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Pfizer – the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, since 2010.

A different CEO rated as ‘Top Performing’ pharma leader:

Pfizer CEO’s ‘exemplary leadership and vision’, has been captured in the Proxy Statement by the Independent Directors on the Board of the Company. However, Harvard Business Review (HBR) in its 2016 pan-industry ranking of the “best-performing” CEOs in the world, featured Lars Rebien Sorensen – the then outgoing CEO of Novo Nordisk. He topped the list for the second successive year. Sorensen achieved this distinction ‘Mostly, for his role overseeing astonishing returns for shareholders and market capitalization growth.’ All the CEOs were, reportedly, evaluated by HBR on a variety of financial, environmental, social, and governance metrics.

Interestingly, in the 2017 HBR list for the same, when the Novo Nordisk CEO was out of the race, no pharma CEO could achieve this distinction or even a place in the top 10. Pablo Isla of Inditex (Spanish clothing retailer), Martin Sorrell of WPP (PR major in the UK) and Jensen Huang of NVIDIA (American technology company occupied the number 1, 2 and 3 spots, respectively.

Two interesting leadership examples:

I shall not delve into any judgmental interpretations on any aspect of leadership by comparing the Pfizer CEO with his counterpart in Novo Nordisk. Nevertheless, one hard fact cannot be ignored. The accomplishments of Pfizer CEO were evaluated by its own Board and were rated outstanding. Whereas, in case of Novo Nordisk CEO, besides the company’s own Board, his performance evaluation was done by the outside independent experts on the HBR panel.

Was there any difference in their growth strategy?

Possibly yes. There seems to be, at least, one a key difference in the ‘growth strategy’ of these two large pharma players.

Novo Nordisk is primarily driven by ‘Organic growth’ with a focused product portfolio on predominantly diabetes disease area, besides hemophilia, growth disorders and obesity. This has been well captured in the company’s statement on February 6, 2017 where it says: “Organic growth enables steady cash returns to shareholders via dividends and share repurchase programs” and is driven by its Insulin portfolio.

Whereas, Pfizer, though in earlier days followed an ‘organic’ growth path, subsequently changed to ‘Inorganic Growth’ route. Pfizer’s mega acquisitions, in its quest for faster growth to be the world’s largest pharma player, include Warner Lambert (2000), Pharmacia (2002) and Wyeth (2009). The key purpose of these acquisitions appears to expand into a diversified product portfolio of blockbuster drugs.

Pfizer did contemplate changing course:

In 2010, barely two weeks on the job of CEO, Pfizer Inc., Ian Read indicated breaking up the company into two core businesses. However, after six years of meticulous planning, on September 26, 2016, the company announced: “After an extensive evaluation, the company’s Board of Directors and Executive Leadership Team have determined the company is best positioned to maximize future shareholder value creation in its current structure and will not pursue splitting Pfizer Innovative Health and Pfizer Essential Health into two, separate publicly traded companies at this time.”

Sustained value creation following the same path not easy:

After the decision to operate as one company and consolidate the business pursuing similar ‘Inorganic Growth’ strategy, Pfizer went ahead full throttle to acquire AstraZeneca for USD119 billion. But, on May 19, 2014, AstraZeneca Board rejected it. Again, on April 05, 2017, Reuters reported, “Pfizer Inc. agreed on Tuesday to terminate its $160 billion agreement to acquire Botox maker Allergan Plc, in a major victory to U.S. President Barack Obama’s drive to stop tax-dodging corporate mergers.”

Apparently, the current Pfizer CEO is now expected to finish his unfinished agenda, at least for the short to medium term, as the current blockbuster drugs continue losing the steam.

Conclusion:

It’s a common belief that slowing down of a company’s business performance is a compelling reason for its switch from the ‘Organic’ to ‘Inorganic’ growth strategy. The new CEO of Novo Nordisk – Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen also appears to subscribe to this view. While, reportedly, including negative growth at the low end in constant currencies in its guidance for 2017, Jorgensen apparently, confided that M&A will now be a part of the company’s growth search.

On facing a similar situation, the above HBR article suggested the CEOs to fight the short-term pressures of the business cycle of moving away from the ‘Organic’ growth path. This can be overcome by various means, as good ideas for organic growth can always attract required resources and support.

While choosing an appropriate basic growth strategy for the organization – ‘Organic’ or ‘Inorganic’, the CEO’s focus should be on what is best for sustainable and long-term business performance, without being trapped by the prevailing circumstances. Thus, addressing the internal causative factors, effectively, would likely to be a better idea in resolving the issue of a sustainable business performance. This is regardless of the underlying reasons, such as gradually drying up the new product pipeline while blockbuster drugs are going off patent, or due to several other different reasons.

Nevertheless, in the balance of probability, ‘Organic’ growth strategy appears to be less complex and is fraught with lower business risks and uncertainties. Consequently, it reflects a greater likelihood of sustainable achievements for the CEO, and in tandem, a long-term financial reward for the shareholders, investors, and finally the organization as a whole.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma Governance Maladies and Corporate Leadership

Posted on October 2, 2017 by Tapan Ray

On September 26, 2017, two media headlines related to the Indian pharma industry, possibly made many wonder – Are these some of the key reasons prompting the Government to enforce stringent and costly regulations in this sector?

Above revelations came close on the heel of a series of alleged fraudulent, collusive and even criminal behavior of many domestic pharma players, by several overseas regulators, including the US-FDA. Besides international media, similar reports often featured in the national business dailies too. Most of these allegations are related to pharma marketing practices, and drug quality related concerns. In that sense, the core issues of following two news items are no different, and were reported as follows:

“The income tax (IT) investigation wing claims to have unearthed a nexus between a leading pharmaceutical company and doctors, and evidence showing payments running into Crores to the latter for prescribing the company’s medicines.”

Reaching out to Niti Aayog, Indian drug industry lobby groups, “mainly objected to three proposals in the draft policy floated last month: one drug one brand, curbing retailer margins, and mandatory bioavailability and bioequivalence (BA/BE) test for all drugs approved by state regulators and also future renewals.”

Out of these, the objection to mandatory BA/BE tests appears more intriguing to me – for two reasons. First, the news report doesn’t mention the participation of any global pharma company or their lobby groups in this meeting. If true, it would possibly mean, the pharma MNC players operating in India aren’t unduly worried about BA/BE requirements, which are mandatory in other countries of the world, primarily to ensure high generic drug quality standards.

The second one being, when the Indian pharma industry is so vocal on ‘poor quality’ of generic drugs sans brand names, apparently to protect branded generics, why is its lobby groups opposing mandatory BA/BE tests – so critical to address the quality issue. Opposing these tests, citing some ‘reason’, appears absurd. Resolving safety concerns on ‘Unbranded’ generics is nonnegotiable – for patients’ health and safety.

The major incident that snowballed:

It reminds me of the major US-FDA related quality issue involving Ranbaxy of India that eventually snowballed, attracting global media attention. This incident was well covered by Indian Press and Television, as well. As one such business daily reported, the much talked about whistleblower Dinesh Thakur, reportedly claimed that his boss in Ranbaxy made a detailed presentation of the alleged widespread manufacturing lapses and fudging of data in the company first to “a closed-door board of directors meeting in Thailand” in September 2004, and then to its science committee on December 21, 2004. Be that as it may, Ranbaxy subsequently pleaded guilty to several charges by the US-FDA, based on Dinesh Thakur’s testimony, and paid a hefty fine of US$ 550 million. It is worth noting, although Ranbaxy had an immaculate Board of Directors at that time, including distinguished and eminent personalities as the Independent Directors, the company used to be run by the promoters, or in other words, the key shareholders of the company. It may be coincidental that the majority of such incidences reported from India, either related to dubious pharma marketing practices or drug quality standard, may find a curious link with the promoter or the key shareholder driven domestic pharma companies.

The purpose of this article is not to assign blame to anyone, or any organization, but to have an intimate look at the governance process of most of such companies, which is systemic in nature. It may be worth pondering thereafter, whether one can learn the way forward from the credible research reports, available on this important subject.

The doctrine of ‘Maximizing Shareholder Value’:

In many corporate training sessions, especially for the senior management, including pharma industry in India, the above well-known doctrine is emphasized and reemphasized – again and again. It postulates, the ‘corporate managers should make maximizing shareholder value their goal – and that boards should ensure that they do.’

Indian pharma companies predominately being the promoter or the key shareholder driven corporations, choosing ‘maximizing shareholder value’ as the primary corporate mission, I reckon, is not too uncommon, either.

The basic premises of the theory:

The details of this theory were articulated in the 1976 Journal of Financial Economics article “Theory of the Firm,” by Michael Jensen and William Meckling. The concept was further deliberated in the article titled “The Error at the Heart of Corporate Leadership” by Joseph L. Bower and Lynn S. Paine, published in the May-June 2017 issue of Harvard Business Review, and its basic premises were summarized as follows:

Shareholders own the corporation and are “principals” with the original authority to manage the corporation’s business and affairs.
The corporation’s shareholders delegate decision-making authority to the managers and are thus “agents” of the shareholders.
As agents of the shareholders, managers are obliged to conduct the corporation’s business in accordance with shareholders’ desires.
Shareholders want the business to be conducted in a way that maximizes their own economic returns. (The assumption that shareholders are unanimous in this objective is implicit throughout the article.)

A flawed corporate governance model?

Bower and Paine in their above paper lucidly analyze a number of serious flaws in the basic premises of ‘maximizing shareholder value’ model. For example, they indicate that the ultimate responsibility and accountability for good corporate governance, or lack of it, lies squarely with the concerned senior management and the Board of Directors of the company and none else – not even with its large shareholders.

Moreover, the authors caution that this theory’s doctrine of alignment spreads moral hazard throughout a company and narrows management’s field of vision.

Putting it in the context of Indian pharma industry, I reckon, such risks increase alarmingly, when promoters take all management and Governance decisions, with the senior management, including the Board of Directors doing no more than endorsing those, knowingly or unknowingly, just as what happened in case of Ranbaxy, mentioned above.

Providing a more realistic foundation for corporate governance:

Against this backdrop, and accepting the following ground realities, there evolves a critical need to have a more realistic foundation for corporate governance and shareholder engagement, as the above HBR article deliberates:

Corporations are complex organizations whose effective functioning depend on talented leaders and managers.

Corporations can prosper over the long term only if they’re able to learn, adapt, and regularly transform themselves.

Corporations perform many functions in society – such as providing investment opportunities and generating wealth, producing goods and services, creating employment, developing technologies, paying taxes, and making several other significant contributions to the communities in which they operate.

Corporations may have differing objectives and strategies in this regard – such as, what the purpose of a corporation ought to be from a societal perspective may not be quite the same as what its promoters or key shareholders believe those to be.

Corporations must create value for multiple constituencies – such as, companies succeed only if customers want their products, employees want to work for them, suppliers want them as partners, shareholders want to buy their stock, and communities want their presence. In contrast, the ‘creating more shareholder value’ theory’s implied decision prompts that managers should always maximize value for shareholders – oversimplifies this challenge and leads eventually to systematic underinvestment in other important relationships.

Corporations must have ethical standards to guide interactions with all their constituencies, including shareholders and society at large – going beyond forbearance from fraud and collusion, is essential for earning the trust companies need to function effectively over time. ‘Creating more shareholder value’ theory’s ambivalence regarding corporate ethics can set companies up for destructive and even criminal behavior -which generates a need for the costly regulations that agency theory proponents are quick to decry.

All the above eight points, especially the last one, as many consider, are so relevant for the Indian pharma industry, probably more in the promoter-driven ones, as these constitute the bulk of it. It is equally important to understand that corporations are embedded not just in a network of financial systems, but also in a political and socioeconomic matrix, whose health is vital to their sustainability. Thus, changing from ‘‘creation of more shareholder value-centered governance’ to a ‘company-centered governance’ would be more meaningful in today’s paradigm.

The merits of ‘company-centered governance’:

As the Harvard article says, following are some of the merits of changing to a ‘company-centered governance’ from ‘creating more shareholder value-centered governance:’

More board-level attention to succession planning and leadership development
More board time devoted to strategies for the company’s continuing growth and renewal
More attention to risk analysis and political and environmental uncertainty
A strategic (rather than narrowly financial) approach to resource allocation
A stronger focus on investments in new capabilities and innovation
More-conservative use of leverage as a cushion against market volatility
Concern with corporate citizenship and ethical issues that goes beyond legal compliance

Conclusion:

Almost all domestic pharma companies in India are currently family run, mostly by the first or second-generation entrepreneurs, with well-defined and clearly established ownership pattern.

The glorious history of the family run Indian pharma business has started facing a more challenging future, especially in addressing the types of maladies, as epitomized in the above two recent media reports. With the ongoing process of ‘creating more shareholder value’ driven governance – almost totally scripted by the promoter or the key shareholders at the helm, the task ahead remains formidable. Additionally, the reports on Ranbaxy whistleblower’s narrative, prompted many to wonder the role of Independent Directors on the Board of strong promoter driven Indian pharma companies, besides others.

In this scenario, particularly to address the Governance related maladies effectively, a highly competent corporate leadership professionals should be empowered to steer the Indian pharma organizations, in general, from ‘creation of more shareholder value centric governance’ to a well-crafted ‘company centric governance’ process, in a well-calibrated manner and sooner.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Define And Adapt To Reality: Two Pivotal Pharma Leadership Skills For Sustainable Excellence

Posted on April 10, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Max DePree – a much quoted American businessman and author had once said: “The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality.”

While defining the reality within the drug industry today, it makes many industry leaders to ponder, despite so much of the good work done by the industry in various fields of pharma business, across the world, including India, why is the public perception on the overall leadership of this sector still so negative, and continue going south? Pharma leaders know the reasons too, but they seem to be still searching for the right set of answers without breaking the traditional mold of business.

Around end 2007, being concerned with this trend, the then Chairman of Eli Lilly reportedly expressed publicly what many industry observers have been saying privately for some time. He said: “I think the industry is doomed, if we don’t change”.

On the general apathy of breaking the traditional mold after having defined the business reality, an interesting article titled, “Healthcare Leadership Must Shift From A Cottage Industry To Big Business”, published on June 2, 2014 in Forbes, made some interesting observations, which are as relevant to India, just as many other countries of the world.

The article states that the ‘Healthcare Leadership’ has not kept up with the industry’s evolution to big business over the past 25-30 years – nor does it possess the required change management competencies to effectively lead and rapidly turn around an adaptive health care business model. Thus, unlike many other knowledge industries, pharma sector is still struggling hard to convert the tough environmental challenges into bright business opportunities. This leads to an important question: Being mostly inward looking, are these leaders failing to properly define reality around them, and therefore, not adapting to the critical external business environmental needs, soon enough?

Is current pharma leadership too inward looking?

From the available details, it appears that today, many inward-looking pharma leaders tend to ignore many serious voices demanding access to high quality medicines at affordable prices, especially for life threatening ailments, such as, cancer. Instead of engaging with the stakeholders in search of a win-win solution, global pharma leadership apparently tries to push the ball out its court with a barrage of mundane and arrogant arguments highlighting the importance of ‘drug innovation’ and hyping how expensive it is. Notwithstanding that by now, many people are aware of its frequent use, generally by the global pharma players, mostly as a veil, whenever required. Even then, many pharma leaders, instead of accepting the reality, continue to remain insensitive to the concerns not just of most patients, but other stakeholders and their respective governments also. This mindset further reinforces their inward-looking and self-serving image. This brings to the fore the key issue: Is this high time to pass the baton to a new breed of pharma leaders?

In the above backdrop, this article dwells on some intrinsic issues involved with the leadership puzzle of the industry, as it were. Thereafter, it deliberates on the importance of making some easy self-tests available to the young and especially the millennial pharma professionals, to facilitate them to self-discover themselves in this space, and that too at an early stage of their professional career, as they try to understand and define the business and environmental realities facing the industry.

Leadership skills are difficult to find:

Focusing on the pharma industry, I would say, especially in the pharma sector, leadership skill in all its functional areas though is considered as the most important one, but are equally challenging while identifying the right persons.

The 20^th Pharma CEO Survey, March 2017 of PwC, vindicates this point. The survey covered 89 pharma CEOs from 37 countries. Nearly all the Pharma CEOs participating in this survey picked out leadership as the most important for their organization, giving it the top spot, closely followed by problem-solving, creativity and innovation, all bracketed in the second, with collaboration and adaptability occupying the equal third rank, as follows:

Relative importance of skills in pharma industry	Skill sets	Respondents answering somewhat difficult or very difficult to get each one of these
1.	Leadership	79
2.	Creativity & Innovation	75
3.	Emotional intelligence	72
4.	Adaptability	63
5.	Problem-solving	55

Over two-thirds of the CEOs face difficulty in recruiting people with the requisite skills that they consider most important to their organization, such as, leadership, problem-solving, and creative skills, the report highlighted. For further deliberation hereunder, I shall pick up the top one – the leadership skill for the pharma industry, as I see it.

The age-old question – ‘Are leaders born or made?’

A critical question that is often asked even today – ‘Are leaders born or made?’ The question keeps coming as some enthusiasts continue to argue that successful leaders are born with visible or apparently invisible leadership traits.

Are leaders born?

To answer this question, let me quote an example. The Management Study Guide (MSG), well-articulated an approach to the study of leadership known as the ‘Great Man Theory’, giving examples of the great leaders of the past, such as, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Queen Elizabeth I, Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Gandhi. They all seem to differ from ordinary human beings in several aspects, possessing high levels of ambition coupled with clear visions of precisely where they want to go.

Added to these examples are many top business executives, sports personalities, and even contemporary politicians, who often seem to possess an aura that sets them apart from others. These persons are cited as naturally great leaders, born with a set of personal qualities that made them effective leaders. Thus, even today, the belief that truly great leaders are born, is not uncommon. Thus, according to the contemporary theorists, leaders are not like other people. They do not need to be intellectually genius or omniscient prophets to succeed, but they should certainly have the ‘right stuff’, which is not equally present in all people, MSG highlights.

Even today, some continue to believe in the ‘Great Man Theory’, regardless of many well carried out research studies of the behavioral scientists establishing that it is quite possible for individuals becoming leaders through various processes, such as, self-learning, keenly observing or working with some good leaders, following their advices, training, and practicing the experiences thus gained in one’s real life.

Are leaders made?

Just as above, to answer this question, as well, I would cite another important example.

A September 21, 2016 article titled, “What Science Tells Us About Leadership Potential”, published in the ‘Harvard Business Review (HBR)’, while answering the question ‘who becomes a leader’, stated as follows:

“Any observable pattern of human behaviors is the byproduct of genetic and environmental influences, so the answer to this question is ‘both’. Estimates suggest that leadership is 30%-60% heritable, largely because the character traits that shape leadership - personality and intelligence - are heritable. While this suggests strong biological influences on leadership, it does not imply that nurture is trivial. Even more-heritable traits, such as weight (80%) and height (90%), are affected by environmental factors. Although there is no clear recipe for manipulating the environment in order to boost leadership potential, well-crafted coaching interventions boost critical leadership competencies by about 20%–30%.”

What would a young pharma professional do in this situation?

The current breed of top leaders would continue grooming and promoting mostly those who fit their profile, while in the family owned businesses succession usually takes place from within the family. The situation is no different in the pharma industry. However, various studies indicate that millennial professionals with leadership traits will develop themselves.

Keeping this in mind and, at the same time, going by the above HBR article, I would tend to accept the dictum that, “Any observable pattern of human behaviors is the byproduct of genetic and environmental influences”. Thus, for identifying and then honing leadership skills in the pharma business, just as many other industries, I would prefer the process of dovetailing the heritable leadership traits with various environmental influences.

An ambitious pharma professional with high aspiration to make a difference in the organization that the individual represents, would obviously wonder what the way forward for him to achieve the goals. In my view, an honest self-test is the first and basic move in this direction.

The self-test:

Taking a cue from the article titled “Strategic Leadership: The Essential Skills”, published in the January-February 2013 issue of The Harvard Business Review (HBR), I would suggest that the young professionals may wish to ask themselves the following important questions:

Do I have the right networks to help myself see opportunities before competitors do?
Am I comfortable challenging my own and others’ assumptions?
Can I get a diverse group to buy into a common vision?
Do I learn from mistakes?

The answer to each of these ones should be clear and honest, as one doesn’t need to disclose those answers to anyone else. Nonetheless, by following this process, a young professional gets a clear view of where he or she stands in each of these important areas, which cover some of the basic traits of a leader.

The leadership package:

Irrespective of whether an individual has some heritable leadership traits or not, the above self-test would reveal a person’s strengths and weaknesses, help address the deficits and optimize the full portfolio of leadership skills, independently or otherwise.

Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind, as several research studies have already established, though leadership skills are important and difficult to find, a few other salient skills such as, ability to apply in real life a creative and innovative mindset, supported by high emotional intelligence or emotional quotient (EQ) are also critical. This is because, together these offer the all-important leadership package for an all-round successful leader.

Should pharma leadership be eclectic?

I guess so, as there does not seem to be any better alternative either. Thus, I reckon, traditional pharma leadership needs to be eclectic. It has still got a lot to learn from other industries too. Let me give a relevant example here – to speed up development of electric cars by all manufacturers, the Cofounder and Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk of Tesla Motors has reportedly decided to share its patents under ‘Open Source’ sharing of technologies with all others. Elon Musk further reiterated: “If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay Intellectual property (IP) landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal.”

In the important ‘green’ automobile space, this is indeed a radical, gutsy and an exemplary decision to underscore Tesla Motor’s concern about global warming.

Why such type of leadership is so rare in the global pharma world, even today? Besides sanctimonies, as these appear, why the global pharma leaders are not taking similar large scale initiatives for drug innovation, especially in the areas of difficult diseases, such as, Cancer, Alzheimer’s, Multiple Sclerosis and Metabolic disorders, just to name a few? For this purpose, pharma organizations would require mettlesome change agents who can break the traditional mold –new leaders of the millennial generation having a different business outlook altogether, could possibly do so.

Becoming a change agent:

Today, more than ever before, the ultimate goal of pharma leaders requires moving beyond making more money to satisfy the shareholders and stock markets. It also needs to include the requirements of society, in general, more than what mandatory CSR demands. This is palpable today, as many stakeholders vehemently questioning the business game plan of many pharma players. Would this situation change? I don’t know, but it should, which prompts a change in the overall quality of pharma leadership, at all levels. I have had reason to believe that a good number of bright, millennial pharma professionals look for empowerment to discover themselves early. Right at that stage, they also need to chart a road map for self-development, which would facilitate attaining their professional goals, quite in sync with the broad societal expectations, as they move on in life.

New pharma leadership would require greater focus on ethics and engagement:

While pharma industry leaders, in general, have been impressive articulators of all right things that need to happen, ‘Talking the Talk’ and ‘Walking the Walk’ in the frontiers of business ethics, values and shared goals are found wanting in many of them. These articulations are probably used to run expensive global ‘Public Relations (PR)’ campaigns, lobbying and advocacy initiatives in the corridors of power.

What else then could possibly be the reason for such perception gap that this great industry has allowed to increase, over a long period of time? Could it be that many pharma leaders have not been able to adequately adapt themselves to the demands of the changing healthcare environment and the needs of various stakeholders in this sector? Is the leadership, therefore, too archaic and it’s a time for a change?

Thus, unlike the current pharma leadership, the new age leadership needs to be ethically grounded, and engage all stakeholders effectively in a transparent manner with impeccable processes of governance involving all areas of business. Such leaders may not be know-all individuals in the pharma business, but must possess a clear vision of where they want to lead the company to, and don’t slip back, especially in terms of public image and meeting patients’ expectations.

In conclusion:

Pharma business in modern times faces rapidly changing stakeholder expectations, which are generally difficult to predict well in advance. Thus, today’s pharma leaders require to adapt their strategic approach and the tactical game plans accordingly for business excellence in an inclusive manner, and simultaneously try to shape the environment to the extent possible.

There is a growing expectation from the pharma leaders to do business by imbibing a caring outlook towards the society, where it operates. Spending time and money to transplant the past practices in the changed environment, or continuing with the traditional business approaches, I reckon, is a no-win game today.

Thus, there arises a need to help the young pharma professionals, from the early stages in their professional life, for shaping up as the chief change agent in the organization that they would lead. Even after reaching where they wanted to reach, these leaders should keep studying on a continuous basis, various other successful leadership styles, approaches and visions, to splice them into a more productive strategic approach for the business or functional areas that they lead.

This new breed of leaders would also require defining the reality prevailing in the industry on an ongoing basis, to pave the way for a glorious future for their respective organizations. This effort would call for regular and effective engagement with all the stakeholders through various digital and other platforms. The critical question that the new pharma leadership should never forget to continually ask themselves: “How can my organization provide better access to high quality and effective medicines to most patients along with achieving commercial excellence in business?”

Properly defining and quickly adapting to associated environmental realities with a creative mind, requisite emotional intelligence and ethical business practices, would call for coming out of the zone of comfort with promptness. These, I reckon, would be the two pivotal success factors for new pharma leaders for inclusive and sustainable success in business, as the industry moves on.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Millennial Generation Doctors And Patients: Changing Mindset, Aspirations, And Expectations

Posted on November 7, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The term ‘Millennial Generation’ normally refers to the generation, born from 1980 onward, brought up using digital technology and mass media. According to ‘Millennial Mindset’ – a website dedicated to helping businesses understand millennial employees and new ways of working, the key attributes of this generation are broadly considered as follows:

Technology Driven:
Socially Conscious
Collaborative

The millennial mindset:

The publication also indicates that the overall mindset of the millennial generation is also vastly different from the previous generations, which can fall into four categories:

Personal freedom, Non-hierarchical, Interdependent, Connected, Networked, Sharing
Instant gratification, Wide Knowledge, Test and learn, Fast paced, Always on, Innovative
Fairness, Narcissistic, Purpose driven
Balance, Eco-friendly and Experience focused

Seeks different professional ecosystem:

In the professional arena too, this new generation’s expectations from the professional ecosystem are often seen to be distinctly different, as they are generally seen to be:

Willing to make a meaningful professional contribution, mostly through self-learning
Seek maintaining a reasonable balance between work and personal life
Prefer flexible work environment, unwilling to be rigidly bound by convention, tradition, or set rules
Impatient for fast both personal and organizational growth, often on the global canvas

The ‘Millennial Generation’ in India:

The millennium generation with a different mindset, aspirations and value system, already constitutes a major chunk of the Indian demography. According to the 2011 Census, out of estimated 1.2 billion population, around 701 million Indians (60 percent) are under 30 years of age, which also very often referred to as ‘demographic dividend’ of India.

Currently, a large number of Indians belonging to the millennial generation are entering into the work stream of both national and International companies operating in the country.

The challenge in healthcare arena:

In the healthcare sphere too, we now come across a fast increasing number of technology savvy and digitally inclined patients and doctors of this generation. Accurately gauging, and then meeting with their changing expectations has indeed been a challenging task for the pharma companies, and the related service providers.

Their expectations from the brands and other services, as provided by the pharma companies, don’t seem to be quite the same as before, either, so are the individually preferred communication formats, the way of processing, and quickly cross-verifying the product and other healthcare information. Before arriving at any decision, they were found to keenly observe the way brands are marketed, their intrinsic value, type and the quality of interface for engagement with them by the companies, whenever required.

Thus, from the pharma business perspective, qualitatively different strategic approaches, to both the millennial doctors and patients, would be of increasing importance and an ongoing exercise. The goal posts would also keep moving continuously. Achieving proficiency in this area with military precision, I reckon, would differentiate the men from the boys, in pursuit of business performance excellence.

In this article, I shall primarily discuss on the changing mindset and needs of the patients and doctors of the ‘millennial generation’.

A. Treating millennial patients differently:

Around 81 percent of millennial doctors, against 57 percent of older generation doctors think that millennial patients require a different relationship with their doctors than non-millennial patients. About 66 percent of millennial doctors actually act upon this and change their approach, as the survey reported.

The difference:

The key differences on millennial doctors’ treating millennial patients, are mainly in the following areas:

Expects more, doesn’t get swayed away: Millennial doctors are more likely to advise the millennial patients to do additional research on their own for discussion. 71 percent of millennial doctors believe it’s helpful for patients to do online research before their appointment. However, they don’t get swayed by requests from more-informed patients, as only 23 percent of millennial doctors say they are influenced by patient requests when it comes to prescribing a treatment, whereas 41 percent of non-millennial doctors report finding those requests influential.

Gets into the details: The millennial doctors are more likely to simplify and streamline explanations for older patients, whereas non- millennial doctors were more likely to simplify explanations for millennial patients too, treating them exactly the same way.

Relies on digital resources: Millennial doctors rely mostly on using digital resources for treating millennial patients, but only around 56.5 percent of them do so for non-millennial patients.

B. Treating millennial doctors differently:

For effective business engagement and ensure commensurate financial outcomes, pharma companies will first require to know and deeply understand the changing mindset, expectations, and aspirations of the millennial doctors, then work out tailor-made strategic approaches, accordingly, to achieve the set objectives.

Top 3 expectations from the pharma industry:

According to a June 2016 special survey report on Healthcare Marketing to Millennials, released by inVentive Health agencies, the top 3 expectations of millennial and non-millennial doctors from the pharma industry, are as follows:

Rank	Millennial Doctors	%	Rank	Non- Millennial Doctors	%
1.	Unbranded Disease Information	67	1.	Unbranded Disease Information	58
2.	Discussion Guides	48	2.	Latest Specific News	46
3.	Adherence Support	40	3.	Healthy Life Style Information	42

Pharma players, therefore, can provide customized offerings and services, in various innovative platforms, based on these top 3 different expectations of millennial and non-millennial doctors, to achieve much needed critical competitive edge for a sustainable business performance.

Brand communication process needs a relook:

The above report also noted a number of the interesting trends related to the millennial doctors. I am quoting below just a few of those:

Only 16 percent of millennial doctors found pharma promotional materials to be influential when considering a new treatment compared to 48 percent of non-millennial doctors who do.

79 percent of them refer to information from pharmaceutical companies only after they’ve found that information elsewhere.

65 percent of these doctors indicated, they did not trust information from pharmaceutical companies to be fair and balanced, while only 48 percent of their older peers shared that sentiment.

50 percent found educational experiences that are driven by their peers to be the most relevant for learning and considering about new treatments, against 18 percent of non-millennial physicians.

52 percent of them, when learning about new treatment options, favor peers as their conversation partners.

They are much more likely to rely on a third-party website for requisite product or treatment information

60 percent of millennial doctors are more likely to see a pharma rep, if they offer important programs for their patients, compared to only 47 percent of non-millennial doctors. This also reflects greater patient centric values of the millennial doctors.

However, an overwhelming 81percent of millennial doctors believe that any type of ‘Direct To Consumer (DTC)’ promotion makes their job harder, because patients ask for medications they don’t need.

41 percent of millennial doctors prefer a two-way and an in-person interaction, against just 11 percent of them with online reps. Here, it should be noted that this has to be an ‘interaction’, not just predominantly a monologue, even while using an iPad or any other android tablets.

Redesigning processes to meet changing expectations and needs:

Thus, to create requisite value, and ensure effective engagement with millennial doctors, the pharma companies may consider exploring the possibility of specifically designing their entire chain of interface with Millennials, right from promotional outreach to adherence tools, and from medical communications to detailing, as the survey report highlights. I shall mention below just a few of those as examples:

Communication platforms:

For personal, more dynamic and effective engagement, non-personal digital platforms – driving towards personal interactions with company reps, together with facilitating collaboration between their professional peer groups, came out as of immense importance to them.

Adherence and outcomes:

There is a need for the pharma companies to move the strategic engagement needle more towards patient outcomes. This is mainly because, medication adherence is a large part of the patient outcome equation. It involves a wide range of partnerships, such as, between patients and physicians, and also the physicians and pharma players. This particular need can be best met by offering exactly the type of collaborative approach that millennial doctors favor.

Medical communication:

Redesigning the core narrative of medical communication around a disease state and product, engaging the wisdom and enthusiasm of scientific, clinical, and educational leaders primarily to serve a well-articulated noble cause, are likely to fetch desired results, allaying the general distrust of millennial doctors on the pharma companies, in general.

Medical representative:

Earning the trust of the millennial doctors by respecting, accepting, and appealing to their value systems, is of utmost importance for the medical reps. To achieve this, drug companies would require to equip their reps with tools and programs that offer value in terms of patient support and adherence, while demonstrating compelling outcomes with a positive patient experience, and greater efficiency in treatment decisions.

Building reputation:

The “Purpose Generation” – that’s how millennials are often referred to. In that sense, to build a long lasting business reputation among them, pharma companies need to be in sync with this new generation.

Weaving a trusting relationship with them involves meeting all those needs that these doctors value, such as, adherence solutions, innovative patient support programs, and creating shared value for communities. This would mean, for many drug companies, charting an almost uncharted frontier, where there aren’t many footsteps to follow.

Need to induct younger generation to top leadership positions faster:

To capture these changes with precision, and designing effective engagement strategies for millennial patients and doctors accordingly, an open, innovative and virtually contemporary mindset with a pair of fresh eyes, are essential. As against this, even today, many ‘Baby Boomers’ (born approximately between 1946 and 1956), who have already earned the status of senior citizens, meticulously nursing a not so flexible mind with traditional views, still keep clutching on to the key top leadership positions in the pharma industry, both global and local.

This prevailing trend encompasses even those who are occupying just ornamental corporate leadership positions, mostly for PR purpose, besides being the public face of the organization, sans any significant and direct operational or financial responsibilities. Nevertheless, by pulling all available corporate levers and tricks, they hang-on to the job. In that way, these senior citizens delay the process of change in the key leadership positions with younger generation of professionals, who understand not just the growing Millennials much better, but also the ever changing market dynamics, and intricate customer behavior, to lead the organization to a greater height of all round success.

I hasten to add, a few of the younger global head honcho have now started articulating a different vision altogether, which is so relevant by being a community benefit oriented and patient centric, in true sense. These icons include the outgoing GSK chief Sir Andrew Witty, who explains how ‘Big Pharma’ can help the poor and still make money, and the Allergan CEO Brent Saunders promising to keep drug prices affordable. Being rather small in number, these sane voices get easily drowned in the din of other global head honchos, curling their lips at any other view point of less self-serving in nature. Quite understandably, their local or surrounding poodles, toe exactly the same line, often displaying more gusto, as many believe.

Conclusion:

The triumph of outdated colonial mindset within the drug industry appears to be all pervasive, even today. It keeps striving hard to implement the self-serving corporate agenda, behind the façade of ‘Patient Centricity’. When the demography is changing at a faster pace in many important countries, such as India, a sizeable number of the critical decision makers don’t seem to understand, and can’t possibly fathom with finesse and precision, the changing mindset, aspirations and expectations of the millennial generation doctors and patients.

Expectedly, this approach is increasingly proving to be self-defeating, if not demeaning to many. It’s affecting the long term corporate performance, continually inviting the ire of the stakeholders, including Governments in various countries.

From this perspective, as the above survey results unravel, the millennial doctors and patients, with their changing mindset, aspirations, expectations and demands, look forward to an environment that matches up with the unique characteristics and values of their own generation.

To excel in this evolving scenario, especially in India – with one of the youngest demographic profiles, proper understanding of the nuances that’s driving this change, by the top echelon of the pharma management, is of utmost importance. Only then, can any strategic alignment of corporate business interests with the expectations of fast growing Millennials take shape, bridging the ongoing trust deficit of the stakeholders, as the pharma industry moves ahead with an accelerated pace.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Leading Through The Challenge Of Change: Is Pharma Leadership Too Archaic?

Posted on June 16, 2014 by Tapan Ray

A recent major global survey titled “Testing The Health Of The Pharmaceutical Industry” has revealed that a sizable majority of executives polled, though believe the sector is in good shape, are concerned of its reputation. Interestingly, 73 percent of respondents believe that pharma companies should become “Genuine Healthcare Providers”.

From many other reports, as well, one gets to know that the overall image of the global pharmaceutical industry, despite the high profile personas being on the saddle, is currently as good or as bad as the same of, say, Tobacco or Alcoholic beverages sectors. Lamentably, the common perception is that the industry is hugely self-serving, problem making, largely exploitative and mostly surreptitious in its dealings.

This perception prevails, despite the fact that pharma industry exists to help mankind fighting against diseases continuously, thus improving the quality of life, quite unlike the other two industries, as indicated above.

Media reports on ignoble acts of this otherwise noble industry keep coming in tidal waves regularly and unabated, from many parts of the world, the latest being the alleged mega bribery scandal involving the large global majors in China, besides many others.

While industry leadership is generally smooth articulators, ‘Talking the Talk’ and ‘Walking the Walk’ slogans in the frontiers of ethics, values and shared goals of many of these much reported companies, are probably used to run expensive global ‘Public Relations (PR)’ campaigns, lobbying and advocacy initiatives in the corridors of power.

What then could possibly be the reason of such perception gap that this great industry is allowing to increase, over a long period of time? Could it be that pharma collective leadership has not been able to adequately adapt itself with the demands of changing healthcare environment and the needs of various nations in this space, across the globe? Is the leadership, therefore, too archaic?

Is Pharma leadership too archaic?

In this context, an interesting article titled, “Healthcare Leadership Must Shift From Cottage Industry To Big Business”, published in one of the latest issues of Forbes, though deals with issues pertaining to the ‘Healthcare Industry’ in America, nevertheless makes some interesting observations, which are relevant to India as well, just as many other countries of the world.

It states that the ‘Healthcare Leadership’ has not kept up with the industry’s evolution to big business over the past 25-30 years – nor does it possess the required change management competencies to effectively lead and rapidly turn-around an adaptive healthcare business model.

As a result, unlike many other knowledge industries, pharma sector is still struggling hard to convert the tough environmental challenges into bright business opportunities.

Inward looking leadership?

From the available details, it appears that today, mostly inward looking pharma leadership tends to ignore the serious voices demanding access to medicines, especially for dreaded diseases, such as, Cancer. Instead of engaging with the stakeholders in search of a win-win solution, global pharma leadership apparently tries to unleash yet another barrage of mundane and arrogant arguments highlighting the importance of ‘Drug Innovation’ and hyping how expensive it is. The leaders do it either themselves or mostly through their own funded trade associations.

In tandem and unhesitatingly, the leadership and/or their lobbyists reportedly exert all types of pressures even to get the relevant laws of sovereign countries amended or framed to further their business interests. The leadership continues to demonstrate its insensitivity to the concerns of a vast majority of patients, other stakeholders and their respective governments, further reinforcing its self-serving image.

Does anyone really talk against ‘Drug Innovation’?

The moot question, therefore, is: Why is this hype? Who on earth really talks against drug innovation? None, I reckon. On the contrary, drug innovation is considered by all as absolutely fundamental in the continuous combat of mankind against a galore of ailments. It should certainly be encouraged, protected and rewarded all the way, following a win-win pathway for providing access to these innovative drugs for all. There is no question about and no qualms on it.

Insensitive comments do matter:

Insensitive comments from the leadership further widens the perception gap. Let me give two examples:

I. Recently while justifying the price of US$ 1000/tab of the Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi of Gilead, the CEO of Sanofi reportedly highlighted, “Unprecedented innovation comes at a price.” This is of course true, but at what price…US$ 1000/tablet? If this comment is not insensitive and outrageous, does it at least not smack of arrogance?

II. Another such insensitivity was expressed through reported proclamation in public of the Global CEO of Bayer, not so long ago, which clarified that: “Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western Patients that can afford it.” Incidentally, the above comment came from the same Bayer whose research chemists synthesized Prontosil, the first antibiotic, in 1932, more than a decade before penicillin became commercially available. Prontosil and subsequent “Sulfa” drugs – the first chemicals used to treat bacterial infections, ushered in a new era for medicine, saving millions of lives of patients globally. At that time, the then Bayer CEO probably did not say that Prontosil was developed “just for the Western Patients that can afford it.”

‘Inclusive Innovation’ for greater access:

Any innovation has to have an impact on life or life-style, depending on its type. Each innovation has a target group and to be meaningful, this group has to have access to the innovative product.

So far as drugs and pharmaceuticals are concerned, the target group for innovation is predominantly the human beings at large. Thus, to make the drug innovation meaningful, the new medicines should be made accessible to all patients across the globe, with social equity, as per the healthcare environment of each country. This underscores the point that drug innovations would have to be inclusive to make meaningful impacts on lives.

New age pharma leadership should find out ways through stakeholder engagement that innovative drugs are made accessible to majority of the patients and not just to a privileged few…fixing a price tag such as US$ 1000/tab for Sovaldi, Sanofi CEO’s above comment notwithstanding.

Leadership lessons to learn from other industries:

Traditional pharma leadership has still got a lot to learn from other industries too. For example, to speed up development of electric cars by all manufacturers, the Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk of Tesla Motors has reportedly decided to share its patents under ‘Open Source’ sharing of technologies with all others. Elon Musk further reiterated:

“If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay Intellectual property (IP) landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal.”

In the important ‘green’ automobile space, this is indeed a gutsy and exemplary decision to underscore Tesla Motor’s concern on global warming.

Why such type of leadership is so rare in the global pharma world? Besides some tokenisms, why the global pharma leaders are not taking similar large scale initiatives for drug innovation, especially in the areas of dreaded and difficult diseases, such as, Cancer, Alzheimer’s, Multiple Sclerosis and Metabolic disorders, just to name a few?

Finding cost-effective ways for even ‘Unprecedented’ drug innovation:

Taking a lesson from the Tesla example and also from my earlier blog post, ‘Open Source’ model of drug discovery, would be quite appropriate in the current scenario not just to promote more innovative and intensive approaches in the drug discovery process, but also to improve profit.

According to available reports, one of the key advantages of the ‘Open Source’ model would be substantial reduction of cost even for ‘Unprecedented’ innovations, besides minimizing the high cost of failures of several R&D projects. These, coupled with significant savings in time, would immensely reduce ‘mind-to-market’ span of innovative drugs in various disease areas, making these medicines accessible to many more patients and the innovation inclusive.

Indian Pharma – promoter driven leadership:

Back home in India, fast growing India Pharma businesses predominantly consist of generic drugs and are family owned. A 2011 study conducted by ‘ASK Investment Managers’ reported, “Family Owned Businesses (FOB)” account for 60 percent of market cap among the top 500 companies in India and comprise 17 percent of the IT Industry, 10 percent of refineries, 7 percent of automobiles and 6 percent of telecom, in the country. In the domestic pharmaceutical sector, almost hundred percent of the companies are currently family owned and run, barring a few loss making Public Sector Units (PSUs).

As most of these companies started showing significant growth only after 1970, we usually see the first or second-generation entrepreneurs in these family run businesses, where the owners are also the business leaders, irrespective of size and scale of operations.

However, it is unlikely that the pharma business owners in India would be willing, just yet, to go for a regime change by hiring professional leaders at the helm of a business, like what the IT giant Infosys announced the week last or Cipla did sometime back. Nevertheless, they all should, at least, attune themselves with the mindset of the new age pharma leaders to reap a rich harvest out of the opportunities, at times veiled as threats.

New leadership to be ethically grounded and engage everyone:

Unlike what is happening with the current pharma leadership today, the new age leadership needs to be ethically grounded and engage all stakeholders effectively in a transparent manner with impeccable governance.

Quoting Dr. Michael Soman, President/Chief Medical Executive of Group Health Physicians, the above Forbes article states that in the new age healthcare leadership model, the leader may not have to have all of the answers to all the problems, but he would always have a clear vision of where we wants to lead the company to.

This new leadership should create a glorious future of the pharma industry together with all other stakeholders by asking: “How can we all be part of healthcare solutions?”

Conclusion:

Unfortunately, despite so much of good work done by the pharmaceutical industry in various fields across the world, including in India, the general public perception on the leadership of the pharma world, is still very negative for various reasons. Pharma industry also knows it well.

Thus, around the close of 2007, the Chairman of Eli Lilly reportedly said publicly what many industry observers have been saying privately for some time. He said: “I think the industry is doomed, if we don’t change”.

The available statistics also paints a grim picture of the traditional big pharma business model going from blockbuster to bust with the mindset of the leadership, by and large, remaining unchanged, barring some cosmetic touch-ups here or there.

The old business model – sprawling organizations, enormous capital investments, and spiraling costs, underwritten by a steady stream of multibillion blockbuster products – is simply a pipe dream today.

Has anything much changed even thereafter? May be not. Thus, to meet the new challenge of change in the healthcare space, doesn’t the new age pharma leadership still look too archaic, at least, in its mindset and governance pattern?

Is it, therefore, not high time for them to come out of the ‘Ostrich Mode’ collectively, face the demanding environmental needs squarely as they are, try to be a part of healthcare solutions of a nation in a win-win way and avoid being perceived as a part of the problem?

Effective leadership learning process has always been eclectic, borrowing ideas and experiences from other disciplines. In case of pharma, it could well be from other knowledge industries, such as, Information Technology (IT), Telecommunications etc. But change it must. Not just for business growth creating shareholders’ value, but for long-term survival too, basking in glory.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: leadership

While Pharma Leadership Change This Atypical Skill Counts

Trees Die From The Top: Apt For Pharma Leadership Too?

Organic and Inorganic Growth Strategy For Sustainable Business Excellence

Pharma Governance Maladies and Corporate Leadership

Define And Adapt To Reality: Two Pivotal Pharma Leadership Skills For Sustainable Excellence

Millennial Generation Doctors And Patients: Changing Mindset, Aspirations, And Expectations

Leading Through The Challenge Of Change: Is Pharma Leadership Too Archaic?