Sharp Professional Consultants Llc

[Brian Bezdicek]

Inmy previous summer intern experience, I did quite well in the projects compared to other interns. However, my boss told me that they were all "surprised" to see that my final presentation result was far better than other interns. Also, some managers' feedback was that I sometimes seem "careless" or "dazed".

After self-reflection, I realized that I'm the kind of person who is very easy going and work with colleagues in a relaxed way. Some colleagues also mentioned I am "too naive" and should be more "seasoned". Also, I feel that I am sometimes too humble and don't carry enough confidence. For example, for things I don't know well enough, I will be 100% transparent, while some interns will pretend that they are a master in this topic even though they aren't. However, during the project presentation stage, I would be sharp, confident, and communicative after enough practice and preparation to boost my confidence".

Could you please share some advice on this issue? I'm thinking of how to boost my confidence and find some methods to look "sharp and smart" even during daily routines. Also, instead of being "naive and humble", I would like to project a professional image of being "seasoned, sharp, and professional. Thanks a lot for your insights.

First of all, I would advise you to take your colleagues' advice with a pinch of salt. It honestly sounds like you got some random feedback (people always feel like they have to say some "grow areas" as well). E.g., being "naive" probably just means that you are inexperienced, I don't think it's a very strong and actionable feedback to say. It's great that you are doing self-reflection. Filter out the noise and focus on those people's opinions that you respect the most.

- Focus on your strengths. What makes you unique? I have colleagues who have a ton or areas of improvement, but really excel in 1-2 things and do a great job in "branding" themselves from those angles. People know them as "the analytics guy" or the "get things done lady" which gives them a unique edge when it comes to e.g., getting staffed on projects.

- The best advice I ever got was: don't ask for permission, ask for forgiveness. Now this obviously does not mean that you don't align with your supervisors before making decisions. But it reflects the leadership and ownership mindset that you have to possess. Act as if you are on your own and trust that the leadership will have your back. This mindset shift won't happen from one day to another.

It seems like you just need to make sure not to give the dazed/naive/careless vibe by simply behaving as when you do when making a presentation. Those would be simple nuances like speed and sharpness and volume of your speech, your posture, your eye contact.

In my opinion, no need to act like an expert on the topic - be open about what you understand and don't understand - the last thing the team needs is a know-it-all that can't deliver as what he/she promises.

No need to rush into "improving yourself", it takes time to have those nuances tweaked, just be more aware of them and slowly experiment with small changes and adjust based on the internal/external reactions you receive.

Short answer: Be yourself; whilst looking sharp and sounding confident may impress people initially, it will be for nothing if the person do not have the substance to back it up. I know a few superstars personally who come across as "normal" or unassuming.

2. Speak deliberately - noticed how confident people usually speak in a composed, assured way? Try doing that if you are a fast talker. Body language tip - be present and focused, have eye contact, smile and be a good listener

Overall, assertiveness is crucial for a consultant. I think however that it is not obvious to give advice without having seen you practicing. You definetely need to train and above all have people who give you regular feedback (eg your manager). I would be happy to talk to you about it one day if you are interested.

I'll take a slightly more controversial perspective and say that you potentially start thinking from the wrong direction. Based on experience I'd say it's really really difficult to make an outward-side impression without tackling the root cause inside. Fake it until you make it doesn't really work - maybe I won't recognize it the first time, but I will recognize it and at that moment you will have lost your credibility (please bear in mind that consulting is a trust and relationship business).

So for me the most important aspect would actually be to start thinking like a pro in a "sharp and smart" way. Good news: it can be learned. Bad news: no short-cut existing. Reading good business news, developing business acumen, familiarizing yourself with structured thinking and communication (thinking of "The Pyramid Principle" / Barbara Minto book) could support. Obviously those are generic suggestions and we would need to look specificically for you in a targeted session on that.

Dear A,

All you need to learn is how to do a pocker face :D

But, seriously, better be yourself and not to follow other ways. I would recommend you to concentrate more on your resources and strength. But working in a constructive way on your weak side, not simply following what every single people say.

Good luck,

Andr

The complainant stated that he/she received a promotional email from Pulse on 16 February which stated that it was promotional without stating what it was promoting, nor was prescribing information present.

A second email from the complainant referred to another email from Pulse he/she received on 28 February which was apparently certifed but did not include prescribing information, so the complainant had no idea what it was promoting.

The Panel considered that whilst it might be prudent to provide prescribing information for such medicines with the invitation, as the invitation did not promote any specifc Merck Sharp & Dohme medicines it was not a breach of the Code not to. Thus the Panel ruled no breach of the Code.

The complainant stated that he/she received a promotional email from Pulse on 16 February which stated that it was promotional without stating what it was promoting, nor was prescribing information present.

A second email from the complainant referred to another email from Pulse he/she received on 28 February which was apparently certified but did not include prescribing information, so the complainant had no idea what it was promoting.

The Panel considered that whilst it might be prudent to provide prescribing information for such medicines with the invitation, as the invitation did not promote any specific Merck Sharp & Dohme medicines it was not a breach of the Code not to. Thus the Panel ruled no breach of the Code.

The complainant stated at the time of submitting the complaint that he/she was a health professional who worked as a consultant to Novartis. It had previously been decided, following consideration by the then Code of Practice Committee and the ABPI Board of Management, that private complaints from pharmaceutical company employees had to be accepted. To avoid this becoming a means of circumventing the normal procedures for intercompany complaints, the employing company would be named in the report. The complainant would be advised that this would happen and be given an opportunity to withdraw the complaint.

The case preparation manager decided that the principles set out above would apply to consultants. Consultancy status should not be used to circumvent the normal rules for inter-company complaints.

The complainant was advised that if he/she wished to proceed with the complaint in a private capacity Novartis would be named in the case report; and the respondent company would be informed of his/ her professional status and the connection with pharmaceutical companies. The complainant so agreed.

A second email from the complainant referred to another email from Pulse he/she received on 28 February which was apparently certified but did not include prescribing information either in the email or as a link, so the complainant had no idea what it was promoting.

Merck Sharp & Dohme stated that it took the requirements of both the letter and the spirit of the Code very seriously and was keen to reassure both the PMCPA and the complainant about the nature of this invitation and the rationale for it not containing prescribing information for a product.

The purpose of the invitation was to invite health professionals to an educational webcast on strategies to lower cardiovascular risk, presented by two external experts in this field. As the complainant noted, the invitation clearly stated that it was a promotional meeting within the email subject heading and within the body of the email invitation itself and that the meeting was organised and funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Health professionals were invited via a number of different routes, and included emails from five different providers (named) and sales representatives handing a similar invitation (in hard copy format) to health professionals. Health professionals could then decide whether they dialled into a local webcast or attended a local hub meeting in person, organised and facilitated by the Merck Sharp & Dohme marketing team.

The email invitation in question was sent by a third party (Pulse) which held a list of health professionals who had consented to receive promotional information. All health professionals on this list were sent the invitation.

As the content of the webcast included content in therapy areas where Merck Sharp & Dohme had products with a marketing authorisation and the activity was organised and facilitated by the marketing team with some involvement of sales representatives in the delivery of the meeting at some venues, Merck Sharp & Dohme decided to classify this webcast and the invitation to attend the webcast as promotional.

3a8082e126