When a rep has been struggling for a few months, the first conversation is usually the hardest. By then you're often frustrated, and frustration tends to open the meeting: "I am disappointed in you." From that sentence on, the rep is defending instead of thinking.
Managing performance starts with the struggling rep, but it goes wider: the solid rep nobody coaches, the star the district quietly depends on, and the incentive scheme that rewards the wrong thing. Each one needs facts first and a fair process.
Step 6 of the Pharma Career Ladder for first-line managers is managing performance.
Start with what you can both see
The first step with underperformance is quieter than most managers expect. Agree the facts together before anyone talks about feelings.
Gather several months, never just one bad one: sell-out, coverage, frequency, and what you saw on double visits. Then check your own part. Did the rep have the territory, the stock, the samples and the coaching they needed? Sometimes the gap starts with you.
Share the facts with the rep before you meet, because nobody thinks clearly when they're surprised. In the meeting, ask: "What do you see when you look at these months?" Listen fully before you draw any conclusion. Then agree what it is: a skill gap, a will gap, or something outside their control. If a formal process follows later, it starts from facts you both already agree on. That's fairer for the rep, and it's how HR would expect it to be done.
A plan the rep can pass
A performance improvement plan has a bad reputation, and often it deserves it. Some are written after the decision is made, to build a file. The rep can feel it, and nothing improves.
A fair plan has 4 parts. The gap, in facts the rep can see. What good looks like, clear enough that nobody has to guess. The support you'll give: double visits, practice, time. And review dates you both agreed, so there are no surprises at the end. Agree it with HR before the conversation, so the process is fair and consistent for everyone. Then write it so the rep can pass it. If you wouldn't be glad to see the rep pass, it isn't an improvement plan.
When the support was real and nothing moved
Knowing when to let someone go is the part most managers would rather skip. In my experience, managers more often wait too long than act too soon. The delay feels kind. It rarely is.
First, 1 question needs an honest yes: was the support real? If not, the problem may be yours. If it was, and the gap hasn't moved, waiting has a cost. The territory drifts and doctors notice. Good reps watch what happens when nothing changes. And the rep carries months of pressure without an ending.
When the decision is right, go through HR, properly and in full. Say it clearly and kindly. If the earlier conversations were honest, the reasons won't be a surprise. Keep it private, and thank them for what they gave. Then look back at the hiring, the onboarding and the coaching. That lesson belongs to you.
Where your field days go
Most double visits go to the top rep, because it feels good, and to the rep in trouble, because they have to. The middle gets what's left. Managing the middle is where the biggest gain often hides. Your top rep is near their ceiling. Your middle reps are nowhere near theirs.
Pareto's principle works for people as well as accounts. For each middle rep, there's usually 1 gap, a skill or an account, holding everything else back. Find it, book field days with the middle first, and check over a quarter whether the gap closed. Tell each one what you see in them. Many solid reps have never heard it from a manager.
The other end carries its own risk: the star rep the district depends on. The number looks fine until the star gets an offer, gets tired or takes a long leave. That risk is yours to fix. Let the star teach a developing rep, bring a second rep into the key accounts, and coach the rest so the result is spread across the team. And keep the star growing, or they'll grow somewhere else.
What your incentive scheme teaches
Some incentive schemes backfire. Steven Kerr's well-known article, "On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B", makes a simple point: people do what they're paid for, whatever we hoped they'd do.
Pay for month-end sell-in, and you may get distributor stock loaded in the last week, then a slow start to the next month. Pay for the number of calls, and you may get quick visits to the easiest doctors. Pay only the top name on the ranking, and reps stop sharing what works. The reps read the scheme correctly. The design was the problem. Before a scheme goes live, ask how the smartest rep in the team would win it. If the honest answer isn't the behaviour you want, change the scheme.
Your checklist for this week
- Pull several months of facts for any rep you're worried about, and share them before you meet
- Ask yourself honestly whether that rep had the stock, samples and coaching they needed
- Check any improvement plan with HR, and confirm it has support and review dates in it
- Count last quarter's field days by rep, and book the middle group first
- Name 1 key account where only your star is known, and bring a second rep in
- Ask how the smartest rep would win your incentive scheme
That's Step 6. Next week Step 7 begins: hiring and onboarding, starting with why a structured interview beats gut feel.