Higher learning

Steven Rauschkolb of the Society of Pharmaceutical and Biotech Trainers explains how the training sector has evolved to ensure you can get the best out of your staff.

It has been said before – most famously by Mark Twain – but it bears repeating: ‘Training is everything’. Whether developing your existing talent, applying it to identify future candidates for management assignments, or playing a critical role in staff retention, the value of training seems a no-brainer. Sadly, however, it can often be undervalued in industry, and the pharmaceutical sector is no different. The latest developments in technology mean that training is certainly more sophisticated now than it has ever been. But while the IT may be cutting-edge, some mindsets about training have been antiquated.

“In the past a lot of companies have felt that it was important to train people when they came into the job, but did very little in terms of training once they had gone through their basic foundational training,” says training expert Steven Rauschkolb. “And essentially what that does is allow you to give them the basics to do their job – but they never really move beyond the basics.”

As President of the Society of Pharmaceutical and Biotech Trainers (SPBT), Rauschkolb certainly knows more than most about the benefits of training and development – and the drawbacks of failing to develop your in-house talent. Nevertheless, he is quick to stress that the wind is changing, and more and more firms are coming round to this way of thinking. The SPBT’s membership, which has seen its number rise to over 1050 trainers employed by over 180 pharmaceutical and biotech companies around the globe since its inception in 1971, certainly lends weight to this. But the emphasis on training still varies greatly from company to company.

“Some people know deep down in their bones that the future of their organization is based upon how well their people are trained at the beginning of their career and on an ongoing basis,” explains Rauschkolb. “And they have training as a deep-seated core value, putting their money where their mouth is, and really resourcing the function properly to ensure that they have top notch training and development organizations and programs. They understand that better trained people will achieve better results. But on the other hand there are those that just don’t believe in the value of training beyond the basics for one reason or another. Maybe they worked for a company that didn’t really value training and development and they were able to be successful in spite of that. There is also a third group, those that give lip service to the importance of continuous training, but are the first ones to cancel the training or pull their people out.”

Part of the reason for this skepticism stems from problems relating to the quantification of training’s results. While it can be easy to calculate the ROI on other areas of expenditure, measuring the value that training has had on any given individual and their effectiveness cannot always be so straightforward.

“That is something that we’re constantly grappling with,” Rauschkolb acknowledges. “But I think the most important starting point is to find out what metrics and measurements that your internal customers use – what they are evaluated on to determine whether or not they are meeting their business goals. It doesn’t make a lot of sense for a training department to develop a set of metrics that have no meaning to their customer. I can go to one of my customers and tell them that we increased the number of people we trained 33 percent last year, but in reality, what does that do for them and their ability to drive business results? Maybe something and maybe nothing. It is too nebulous. So our perspective is: know and understand what your customers’ metrics are and then go back and determine if you are doing the right things to help impact those metrics.”

Shaping modern training

Rauschkolb speaks from experience. In the last two decades, he has held various positions in sales, marketing and training in companies including Exxon, AT&T, Schering-Plough and Warner-Lambert and has been the Senior Director of the University of Pfizer and Career Development. At present he is Associate Vice President of Leadership and Management Development at Sanofi Aventis. In the last 20 years, he has seen numerous trends shape modern training.

“In the past, companies would keep the top training job as a rotational position for somebody moving on to other parts o f their career,” he explains. “Therefore, they were giving the top training job to individuals who were maybe excellent Regional Directors or great District Sales Managers, keeping them in the job for a couple of years and using it to develop them and then moving them on and bringing in someone else with a like background. While there are some people with this background who really believed in doing training right and were able to pull it off, many only succeeded in small, non-sustainable change. The problem is that training has become much more sophisticated in terms of the way it is conducted – from a technology perspective, from an adult learning perspective, from a strategic perspective – so that that old approach made training look like a ‘flavor of the month’. People were coming in and trying to make their mark and constantly changing the philosophy and direction.

“But over the past five to seven years companies are increasingly ensuring that the person running the training department is a trained professional. They certainly may have been in other positions, like Regional Director, or Operations, but they have spent a lot of time in their career focusing on training and really understand the nuances and strategic impact that training can have.”

However, the biggest transformation in training has been heralded by the emergence and application of new IT tools in the learning environment. Rauschkolb’s first experience with e-learning was at AT&T in 1984, when the company was introducing its first line of personal computers. However, technology and training have become inextricably linked since then.

“At the beginning the thought was that web-based and computer-based training would replace classroom training,” the SPBT President highlights. “Very quickly, however, that was recognized as something that really wasn’t practical. There’s no substitute for the classroom. Even some of our industry e-learning gurus, such as Elliott Masie, will tell you that it will never completely replace the classroom. The most compelling argument for that is the ability to be able to interact with other people and share ideas. There are other types of technology such as web-based conferencing and interactive broadcast television that could potentially replace some classroom training, however. But people have begun to understand that technology when appropriately used is an additional enabler or adjunct to the classroom to ensure that through what we now call a ‘blended learning’. Blended Learning uses technology to prepare them for the classroom, may also be used in the classroom and then used as a way to sustain the learning after the classroom event. So it is really more of a blended utilization and I think that is the model that most groups are working off now. Unfortunately the initial direction in web-based learning was to buy big libraries of training off-the-shelf and use them with very little if any customization…A lot of us have since found out that that’s not necessarily the best way to go.”

Behavioral change

While the application of technology has been a learning experience for those occupying a training capacity, mistakes have not been solely confined to the area of IT. In fact, some of the most common mistakes associated with training occur elsewhere. “There is one particular mistake that has happened over the years,” says Rauschkolb. “The training department will go and sit down with an internal client and ask them about a specific training need that they have. They will then come back with a training model only to be told that they can’t take people out of the field for that long and that they have to cut that amount of time by half or two-thirds. As trainers, frequently we don’t push back on that enough to say that training is more than just a fancy PowerPoint presentation. There are very specific steps in adult learning that allow people to be able to understand a concept, practice a concept and then have it reinforced – and you can’t shortcut any of those steps if you really want the training to stick and you want behavioral change.”

Rauschkolb has one main piece of advice for new trainers just starting out in the sector. “One of the most common mistakes that new trainers make is they come into the role, having been very successful at their previous role, and think that when they go into the classroom that they are the absolute expert on the subject, and that they have to impart all their knowledge and wisdom to the class. I always say that probably 95 percent of what you want to teach a group already resides in one shape or form or function within that group. The real role of the trainer is to use techniques to get that information out to the group. Many times trainers tend to be too inwardly focused. It is not about them. It is about the class and the people in the class, and having them be able to understand, replicate and consistently execute specific techniques and knowledge.”

Ultimately, however, Rauschkolb is optimistic about the future for the pharma industry’s training sector. Whilst the last two decades has seen the field wrestling with new approaches to training and emerging technologies, the signs are that the industry is now getting increasingly in step with the needs of its customers. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the sea change of thinking that has taken place in recent years to replace the view that staff only required their initial basic foundational training.

“I like the trend that I am starting to see regarding much more of a long-term view of training as a continuous improvement vehicle throughout someone’s career and at every level,” concludes Rauschkolb. “I think that is a very positive trend. However, we have certainly have some challenges ahead as an industry and I hope that training people and developing them throughout their career will be seen as part of a solution and not just a cost driver. Once again that goes back to our abilities as trainers to engage with our internal customers, understand what their needs are, tie our training directly to their needs and be able to demonstrate that we help them move their business forward.” And that is a lesson that an increasing number of businesses are taking on board.

Steven Rauschkolb is the President of the Society of Pharmaceutical and Biotech Trainers. He is employed by Sanofi Aventis as Associate Vice President of Leadership and Management Development. Prior to joining Sanofi Aventis, he was the Sr. Director of the University of Pfizer, Hospital and Specialty representative training at Pfizer. He joined Pfizer as a result of their merger with Warner-Lambert, where he held the position of Senior Director, Learning & Development leading the training functions for all commercial operations including managed markets and medical. Prior to Warner Lambert Rauschkolb was the Director of Training and Communications at Schering-Plough Corporation. In addition, he has held a variety of positions in sales, marketing and training for Ricoh Corporation, AT&T and Exxon. Rauschkolb has also spoken throughout the United States and Internationally on learning, development and e-learning topics.