Why Some Docs Are Successful In Pharma Jobs
11 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // December 7th, 2010 // 10:44 am
There may not be many physicians running big drugmakers (lawyers seem to be more popular choices), but the pharmaceutical industry does employ oodles of people with medical degrees. But what makes some more likely to become high-ranking managers? An ability to work efficiently in the lab? Publish lots of studies? A keen knowledge of office politics? How about bedside manner?
To find out, Amrop Battalia Winston, an executive search firm, assessed 39 docs and gauged 23 personality traits and motivational factors that may have helped some rise to the top. Among those queried were docs in clinical research and medical affairs and work as senior director; executive director; assistant vp; associate vp; therapeutic head or chief medical officer. And they worked for Boehringer-Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca; Merck; Pfizer; Merck Serono; Novartis, Roche, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi-Aventis.
And what did they find? The docs scored above average in assertiveness; aggressiveness; ego drive; risk taking; urgency; abstract reasoning and idea orientation. And they were below average in cautiousness; accommodation; skepticism; thoroughness; self structure (setting priorities) and external structure (needs lots of rules and regulations). Of course, this is a very small group, so drawing specific insights or even generalizations is probably difficult.
Nonetheless, how was this be interpreted? You can read the full report here, but among the conclusions: The “tendency toward action should make them rather results oriented, but this need for action coupled with a lower level of cautiousness suggests that they may miss some opportunities to think through and consider potential consequences and alternative courses before being moved to action.”
“The members of this group are apt to be much more goal focused than relationship focused. This is highly consistent with research findings that suggest effective managers are less accommodating and are not afraid to anger a person or two in the interest of getting goals accomplished…they exhibit a rather low level of detail orientation…And this group is apt to have a higher than average comfort level in ambiguous or ill-defined situations. However, these same dynamics make them less likely to thrive in highly structured, closely managed work environments.”
industry insider
This is difficult to capture in a survey, and is definitely a function of experience, but IMHO an important trait is understanding that most of your decisions will be made with incomplete information, and it’s important to understand when you have a “reasonable critical mass” of information that will allow you to make an informed decision. Another trait is to have a high “BS filter” that allows you to separate signal ffrom noise and get your job done.
Workers also respect a manager who takes responsibility when things go wrong and who is quick to dole out credit to others when things go well. Unfortunately early in my career I had an old fashioned CYA type of boss, whose first response when things went wrong was to say “who or what department can we hang this on?”. The lesson I took from his example was to never try to be that way myself.
Former Big Pharma
In order to be successful in Big Pharma, docs must be willing to “look the other way” when ethical issues arise. Unfortunately, this frequently means abandoning values and morals along the way. If a doc doesn’t let the commercial team have their way, then his tenure with the company is likely to be short. If a doc raises any questions or concerns, then he is not a “good soldier” and will be discharged. Theoretically, the doc is there to do the right thing and ensure the best for patients. In reality, he better toe the company line. Far too many good docs have been terminated and had their careers ruined because they stood true to their ethics. Sad, but true. In my opinion, Big Pharma deserves all the fines they’ve received in the past 5 years and more because they too frequently can’t control themselves and stay clean. There should be more fines, more accountability, more criminal charges, more trials, more convictions, more time in jail and more banishment from doing business in any way shape or form with the government. Enough of these little taps on the wrist and admiting no wrong doing. Hit them where it hurts - the bottom line. Only them will this horrible behavior slow down. It will probably never stop. Big Pharma is a very dirty industry and the public only sees the tip of the iceberg.
Nathan
This is a useful survey because the “control” of the study is the GENERAL POPULATION. (not physicians) So you have no idea whether these “deviated” traits are specific to physicians employed by pharma or whether they are specific to all physicians. (surely physicians in general have a bit different personality profile than the general population, right?)
See this paragraph of the study: “The bars on the graphs represent a half standard deviation from the mean of the group on each trait. Given that the 50% mark (50th percentile) is the average of the general population for each attribute, the mean scores that fell well above, or below, 50% are attributes that warrant consideration because they deviate most from the general population.”
industry insider
Former BP, I agree partially with your comments but only to the extent that there is no single stereotype of the successful MD in pharma. Physicians you describe often start out in Medical but wind up in Marketing because it is oftentimes a higher visibility and faster career track position in the corporate hierarchy and not necessarily because they are inclined to “look the other way”.
There is a whole other group of ethical MD’s that I have worked with on the compliance committes I have served on. Our roles on these committees have been to review promotional claims for DDMAC compliance. On many occasions I have gone eye to eye and toe to toe with the Director of Marketing over claims that he/she wanted but which I felt were DDMAC non compliant. I can look as mean and nasty as Sonny Liston if I have to, but prefer not to operate in that manner. Have I possibly risked my job on some occasions? Probably. But I have always been willing to risk job security rather than compromise my principles. I was never in it to “save the company” from warning letters. Trust me there are many of my former colleagues who felt and acted exactly the way I did.
Again, it is much too complex an issue than to try and characterize the stereotypical pharmaceutical company physician.
Annette Baron
We’ve been placing physicians in the pharma/biotech and related industries for 24 years. I would like to know how the assessment was done; verbal survey, standardized exam? It’s interesting that the attributes uncovered for “top industry physicians” are attributes generally assigned to entrepreneurs and often assigned to front line leaders across nearly every industry. These attributes don’t appear to be specific to “top industry physicians.” Connect with us at eagle@eagleresearch.net
Commercial Critic
Former BP, I think you’re being too general. Most of the time, I think that the R & D physicians are able to take the high road and stay on the ethical path. However, when physicians move into the Medical Affairs arena, the task becomes more challenging. After being “taken to the woodshed” a few times by the commercial teams, they either cave in or lose their jobs. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the business types don’t give a darn about ethics, values and morals. All they care about is sales and profits. That’s why they call it “the dark side.” I’ve seen many good docs pushed out because they wouldn’t sign off on crazy materials. Compliance, rules, regulations, CIAs are all a joke to the “marketeers.”
industry insider
Commercial critic, in 28 years in Pharma Medical Affairs in Big and small pharma I have never seen an MD fired on the directive of a Marketing flack. Marketers are immature by nature, and may huff and puff when they don’t get their oatmeal, but the people at the top know that it is MUCH harder to replace a physician than a “marketeer”.
By “pushed out”, sometimes the MD gets tired of the marketing BS and decides to move to another part of Medical Affairs (which spans many different areas) to preserve his/her sanity, but to any other physicians on these boards, just remember this: except for the top marketing folks, who are all consumed with numbers instead of personalities, THE MARKETING PEOPLE HAVE NO REAL POWER OVER YOUR CAREER.
End of story.
Reality
I disagree. They can get you hired and they can get you fired. All they have to do is gripe enough about you to their management and you’re done. You’re viewed as obstructionist when you refuse to sign-off on their crazy plans and push them to do what’s right. I’ve seen it happen several times to docs trying to do the right thing for physicians, patients, payers, government and the public health. It’s very sad when it happens.
industry insider
Reality, I don’t know your experience but I’m talking about my own peer group. For example my colleagues at Merck and Co., run by Dr. Roy Vagelos would talk about the science-driven culture, and in the end that beats the band over a marketing driven culture because it actually produces the new drugs that allow the company physicians to do the right things you refer to above. George Merck said it right, that if you develop good drugs that improve the lives of people, that healthy profits will be the natural byproduct, and you don’t need marketing to do that for you.
Even in today’s different envirnonment I still believe that in the right company, perhaps a smaller pharma company, it is still possible for an ethical physician to have a successful career.
Reality
The proud history is long gone. Once the business goons replaced the scientists and physicians, integrity slowly went away. Now it’s about the almighty buck and how the key executives can make as much money as possible. Making unethical decisions and having the shareholders pay the fine years later. They’ll mow down anyone who stands in their way!!
Amrop/Caliper
In response to Nathan’s comment - we agree that the control group/condition against which our group of successful MD leaders is compared is a very important consideration when reaching conclusions from these data. The way the data are represented in this report highlight the comparison between the study group and the general population. So while we are able to make distinctions between these successful MD leaders the population at large, this comparison leaves open the possibility that what we are merely observing is the personality dynamics that make one more likely to earn an MD, and not differentiating successful leaders in pharma.
However, Caliper is also in the process of collecting personality data for samples of practicing physicians. We find a number of compelling differences when comparing the current sample successful pharma leaders (n=39) with the sample of practicing physicians. Most notably, the top MD leaders from this study score significantly higher than their practicing physician counterparts on a number of traits including: Assertiveness, Ego-Drive, Risk-Taking, Empathy, Sociability, Idea Orientation, and Urgency. In short, the successful MD leaders in pharma tend to exhibit much stronger leadership communication dynamics; much stronger action orientation; bigger picture, strategic thinking; and the propensity to forge strong, long-term professional relationships.