At JRG Partners, this is the kind of search we run every day, so this piece reflects practice rather than theory. Building a more diverse leadership team in pharmaceutical R&D runs into a structural reality: the senior candidate pool reflects the composition of scientific training pipelines from twenty and thirty years ago. Companies that treat this purely as a hiring problem see limited movement, while those that work on criteria, assessment, and internal advancement together tend to make measurable progress.
Key Takeaways
- The senior R&D pool reflects decades-old pipeline composition.
- Examining role criteria often widens the qualified pool legitimately.
- Structured assessment reduces bias and improves prediction generally.
- Internal advancement conditions determine whether gains persist.
- Progress requires working several levers simultaneously.
Understanding the Structural Constraint
Senior pharmaceutical R&D leadership typically requires a doctorate plus fifteen to twenty-five years of experience, which means today’s candidate pool was formed by who entered and remained in scientific careers decades ago. Attrition at various career stages compounds this. Recognising the structural nature of the constraint matters practically, because it explains why hiring-stage interventions alone produce modest results, and it directs attention toward the levers that actually move the outcome over a realistic horizon.
Examine the Criteria Genuinely
Many R&D leadership specifications carry requirements that are conventional rather than predictive: a specific pedigree of prior employer, an unbroken career progression, a particular title held previously, or a length of experience that no longer distinguishes capability. Each such requirement narrows the pool, often disproportionately. Working through a specification and asking of each requirement whether it genuinely predicts success in the role frequently widens the qualified field without lowering the bar, and it improves hiring quality generally, which is why it is worth doing regardless of diversity considerations.
Structure the Assessment
Unstructured scientific interviews, where candidates present work and discuss it conversationally, are common in R&D hiring and are vulnerable to bias in both directions: interviewers respond to familiarity, presentation style, and institutional pedigree rather than to the quality of scientific reasoning. Structuring the assessment, defining the competencies being evaluated, asking consistent questions, having interviewers score independently before discussion, improves prediction and reduces the influence of similarity. This is well-established practice and is among the more practical steps available.
Advancement Conditions Determine Persistence
Hiring gains erode if internal conditions do not support people staying and advancing. In R&D specifically, this means access to leading consequential programmes, authorship and visibility on significant work, sponsorship into cross-functional and leadership roles, and equitable evaluation of scientific contribution. Companies that hire without attending to these find themselves repeatedly refilling the same positions. The internal work is slower and less visible than hiring initiatives but determines whether any progress compounds or dissipates.
What This Looks Like in Practice
A pharmaceutical R&D organisation examines leadership criteria for requirements that are conventional rather than predictive, structures scientific assessment with defined competencies and independent scoring, and attends to programme access, visibility, and sponsorship conditions that determine whether people stay and advance, treating these as one connected effort.
The Mistake Employers Keep Making
The most common mistake is concentrating entirely on the hiring stage, requiring diverse slates while leaving conventional criteria, unstructured scientific interviews, and internal advancement conditions unchanged. The slate widens and then narrows again through the same filters, and whoever is hired encounters the same conditions as before. Activity increases and outcomes do not.
Levers and Their Time Horizons
| Lever | Effect | Horizon |
|---|---|---|
| Examining role criteria | Widens qualified pool | Immediate |
| Structured assessment | Reduces bias, improves prediction | Immediate |
| Broader sourcing | Reaches beyond familiar networks | Short term |
| Programme access and sponsorship | Builds internal readiness | Multi-year |
| Early-career pipeline work | Changes future pool composition | Long term |
The Bottom Line
Progress on R&D leadership diversity requires working several levers at once, examining criteria that are conventional rather than predictive, structuring assessment, and attending to the programme access and sponsorship conditions that determine retention, since the senior pool reflects decades of pipeline composition that hiring-stage action alone cannot address. Hire for the specific demands of the situation, and the rest of the leadership equation gets easier.
Related Reading
For more, see How to Assess Cultural Fit in Pharma Executive Candidates, Succession Planning for Aging Pharma Leadership, Talent Strategies for Post-Merger Pharma Integration.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Q: Why is the senior R&D pool composed as it is?
- A: Because senior roles typically require a doctorate plus two decades of experience, so the pool reflects who entered and remained in scientific careers decades ago, compounded by attrition.
- Q: What is the most immediate lever?
- A: Examining role criteria for requirements that are conventional rather than genuinely predictive, which widens the qualified pool without lowering standards.
- Q: How should scientific assessment be structured?
- A: With defined competencies, consistent questions, and independent scoring before discussion, since unstructured scientific interviews are vulnerable to pedigree and familiarity effects.
- Q: Why do hiring gains sometimes not persist?
- A: Because internal conditions, programme access, visibility, sponsorship, and equitable evaluation of contribution, determine whether people stay and advance after they join.
- Q: What approach tends to fail?
- A: Concentrating on slate composition at the hiring stage while leaving criteria, assessment methods, and internal advancement conditions unchanged.
![](https://www.jrgpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/tanya-gallardo.jpeg")
Tanya Gallardo
Managing Director, Executive Search & AI Talent Strategy
Tanya Gallardo is the Managing Director of Executive Search & AI Talent Strategy at JRG Partners, leading C-suite and Board engagements across key growth sectors including Technology, Financial Services, and Manufacturing.
With over 18 years of experience specializing in disruptive technology leadership, Tanya is recognized as a leading authority on talent architecture for future-focused executive roles, such as the Chief AI Officer (CAIO) and Chief Digital Officer (CDO). Her expertise lies in accurately assessing the cultural fit and technical depth required to ensure a high return on investment (ROI) for critical leadership appointments.
Prior to her role at JRG Partners, Tanya held senior roles directing global talent acquisition strategies at a major publicly-traded technology firm, advising on organizational design and succession planning for emerging executive functions. She is a recognized speaker and contributor to industry events, sharing data-driven insights on executive compensation, leadership development, and the measurable business impact of C-suite talent.
