How to Assess Commercial Candidates in Drug Delivery

Most hiring managers in drug delivery can tell you whether a candidate knows their formulation platforms. Far fewer can tell you, after an interview process, whether that candidate will actually close business. The two questions require entirely different assessment approaches, and conflating them is one of the most consistent hiring mistakes we see in commercial recruitment across the CDMO space.

The result is interview processes that produce technically credible hires who struggle in front of customers, lose deals in the middle of long sales cycles, and can't translate scientific knowledge into the commercial conversations that actually move opportunities forward. Assessing commercial candidates in drug delivery properly means designing for both dimensions separately, not hoping the same questions will surface both.

‍

Why technical and commercial assessment aren't the same thing

The instinct to lean on technical questions in drug delivery interviews is understandable. The sector has a steep learning curve; candidates need to hold their own with formulation scientists, understand delivery mechanisms, and speak credibly about process development timelines. Hiring managers often feel reassured when a candidate handles these questions well, and rightly so.

The problem is that this reassurance can substitute for rigorous commercial assessment. A candidate who speaks fluently about lipid nanoparticle formulation and one who has spent two years building a pipeline from scratch and closing multi-year development partnerships are drawing on completely different skill sets. The first is a knowledge test. The second requires you to structure the conversation quite differently.

Commercial instinct in a drug delivery context involves a specific set of capabilities: the ability to identify where a prospect is genuinely in their development journey and what that means for the shape and timing of an opportunity; the discipline to qualify properly and not chase noise; the judgement to know when to involve technical colleagues and when to hold the commercial conversation alone; and the persistence to maintain a meaningful presence through a sales cycle that can run to 18 months or longer before a decision is made. None of these surface reliably in a technical deep-dive.

‍

The scenarios that reveal what you actually need to know

Scenario-based questions work in commercial assessment because they remove the candidate from the safety of their CV narrative and put them into situations that require real-time commercial reasoning. The key is designing scenarios that reflect the actual environment your hire will work in, not generic sales situations.

For drug delivery BD roles, a few formats are particularly useful. The first is the qualification scenario: give the candidate a prospect profile, some background on the molecule and development stage, and ask them to walk you through how they'd qualify the opportunity and what questions they'd want answered before investing real time. What you're listening for isn't the right answer, it's how they think. Do they identify the commercially significant variables (timeline pressure, incumbent partner relationships, budget clarity, internal sponsor strength) or do they go straight to technical capability-matching?

The second is the stall scenario. The prospect has gone quiet after two strong meetings. The candidate has a compelling follow-up lined up. Ask them what they do next and why. This surfaces pipeline discipline and structured follow-through more clearly than any question about their career history. The candidate who talks about a structured re-engagement plan with a clear purpose for the next contact is behaving differently from the one who sends a check-in email and waits.

A third approach is the multi-stakeholder scenario, which is particularly relevant in drug delivery because the buying group is genuinely complex. Ask the candidate to describe how they'd map stakeholders at a prospect biotech where the scientific founder, the CMC lead, and a recently hired COO all have input on the outsourcing decision, and each has different priorities. How they navigate that tells you a great deal about commercial maturity.

‍

The farmer/hunter question, done properly

Most commercial roles in drug delivery require a mix of new business development and account management, but the balance varies considerably depending on the organisation and the growth stage. The farmer/hunter distinction matters, and getting a clear answer at interview matters more than leaving it vague and hoping the hire adapts.

The mistake is asking the question directly. "Would you describe yourself as a hunter or a farmer?" produces the answer the candidate thinks you want, not an honest self-assessment. The more useful approach is to build the question into the scenario work and into the candidate's own deal history.

Ask them to walk you through their last three significant wins and their last three significant losses. Where in the sales process did the wins happen, and what were they doing at that stage of the cycle? Which losses kept them up at night, and which did they move on from quickly? A genuine hunter tends to be energised by early-stage prospecting and new relationship-building, and is often candid about where their attention drops once an account is established. A genuine farmer describes their best work in different terms: the depth of relationship built, the expansion of scope over time, the trust that made them the default call when a new project came up.

Neither profile is inherently right for every drug delivery BD role. But knowing which you're hiring before the offer goes out, rather than discovering it six months later, is worth the extra structure in your process. If you're building out a CDMO commercial team, that distinction often maps directly to where the organisation is in its growth cycle.

‍

Building the framework before you start, not after

The most consistent problem with commercial hiring processes is that the assessment framework is assembled retrospectively. After a poor hire, or after a strong candidate is turned down for reasons that weren't clearly articulated, organisations start building clarity about what they actually needed. This works out to expensive learning.

The framework should be built before the job description goes live. That means agreeing, within the hiring team, on the specific commercial behaviours the role requires, how you will test for each of them in process, and what good looks like for each. It also means being clear about the weighting: if pipeline discipline is more critical than new logo generation in year one, that should shape the assessment design, not be resolved by gut feel in the debrief room.

When a candidate presents brilliantly in interview but can't demonstrate the commercial behaviours you've identified as critical, that clarity becomes the decision. It removes the temptation to hire on presentation and hope. It also gives you something concrete to go back to the market with when the search continues, rather than a vague sense that the field wasn't strong enough.

For organisations where the hiring manager is close to the business but less experienced in structured commercial assessment, working with a search partner who understands the drug delivery sales environment can add genuine rigour to this process. Vector Search is designed specifically for senior and specialist hires where the cost of getting the assessment wrong is material.

The best commercial hires in drug delivery combine technical fluency with genuine commercial instinct, and finding them requires an interview process built to test both. Most processes test one well. Designing for both, with the framework agreed before the first CV is reviewed, is what separates organisations that consistently hire well from those that rely on getting lucky.