How to Read a BD CV in Pharma Services: What Strong Hiring Managers Look For

Most BD CVs in pharma services follow the same structure. Previous employer, title, tenure, a handful of revenue figures, and some variation of "responsible for growing the territory across [region]." At first glance, two candidates can look nearly identical. The ones who turn out to be genuinely strong commercial hires often don't look much different on paper from those who struggle once they're in seat. The difference is in how you read the document.

Knowing how to assess a BD CV in pharma is less about spotting brilliance and more about asking better questions of the information in front of you.

‍

Revenue numbers are a starting point, not an answer

A candidate who "grew revenue from £4m to £11m over three years" has given you a data point. What they haven't told you is whether that growth came from landing new accounts, expanding existing ones, or riding a market wave that lifted everyone in the sector. None of those stories is disqualifying on its own, but they describe very different commercial capabilities.

The more useful read is whether the CV gives any indication of how the revenue was generated. New logo generation and account retention require different skills, different instincts, and different day-to-day behaviours. A BD professional who has spent five years deepening relationships with three anchor accounts is not the same hire as someone who's been prospecting and closing new mandates consistently. Both can carry impressive numbers. Neither profile is inherently superior, but if you're hiring into a CDMO business development role that's been created specifically to build new client relationships, you need to know which one you're looking at.

Look for language in the CV that distinguishes between the two. Phrases like "expanded existing accounts" or "supported key account development" signal something different from "opened six new CDMO relationships" or "built a territory from zero in a new geography." When the language is vague, that ambiguity is itself worth probing.

‍

Individual contribution vs team context

Territory size and headline numbers need interrogating before they mean anything useful. A candidate who managed £15m in revenue may have been one of eight people covering that number, or may have been the sole commercial contact for a set of accounts generating that figure independently. CVs rarely volunteer this information, and candidates rarely correct the favourable impression the number creates.

It's worth paying close attention to team size, reporting lines, and how the candidate describes their own role within the commercial structure. "Contributed to" and "led" are doing very different work in a sentence. When a CV references a large team or a well-resourced commercial function, the individual's contribution to any headline figure is almost certainly smaller than the number implies.

Career trajectory carries its own signals beyond raw progression. A candidate who has moved steadily upward within large, established pharma services organisations has probably operated with significant infrastructure support: marketing, proposals teams, pre-existing client relationships, and brand recognition that opens doors. That experience is valuable in the right context. What it doesn't tell you is how they'd perform coming into a leaner business where they'd need to generate their own pipeline from scratch, build credibility with clients who've never heard of the brand, and work without the scaffolding they've relied on previously. The absence of build-from-scratch experience on an otherwise strong CV is worth noting, particularly for roles at PE-backed CDMOs or earlier-stage biotech services businesses where that kind of self-sufficiency is essential.

‍

Technical fluency versus commercial track record

In pharma services BD, particularly across CDMO and CRO environments, there's a meaningful difference between someone who understands the science and someone who has consistently converted that understanding into revenue. Both matter, but they show up differently on the page.

Technical fluency tends to appear in how candidates describe their offering knowledge, their engagement with client scientific teams, or their ability to navigate complex procurement processes. Commercial track record appears in specifics: deals closed, timelines from first contact to signed contract, retention of accounts through contract renewals. The strongest BD profiles in pharma services carry both. What you're watching for is a CV that reads like a scientific CV dressed up with revenue figures, or conversely one that reads like a pure sales CV with a thin overlay of sector knowledge grafted on.

Neither is necessarily disqualifying depending on the role, but recognising which you're looking at changes how you'd use the interview process.

‍

When the CV is strong but ambiguous

A well-constructed BD CV that still leaves you uncertain is often a sign that the candidate is experienced enough to present well on paper without giving too much away. That's not suspicious, but it does tell you what to do next.

The follow-up questions that resolve ambiguity in commercial CVs tend to focus on specifics the candidate couldn't have anticipated. Ask them to walk you through the last deal they closed that they're most proud of, from first contact through to signature. Ask what their pipeline looked like at the start of their most recent role, and what they did to build it. Ask how much of their previous revenue base came with them when they joined, and how much they had to generate from scratch. These aren't trick questions; they're the ones that turn a plausible narrative into verifiable evidence.

For CDMO-specific BD profiles, there are a handful of patterns that tend to predict underperformance even when the CV looks right. A candidate with strong pharma services relationships who has never had to sell on technical differentiation rather than brand is a risk if your CDMO isn't the market leader in a particular modality. Someone whose tenure at each role is long but whose progression has been lateral rather than upward may have been comfortable rather than performing. And a CV that describes extensive "stakeholder management" without any indication of autonomous deal-closing is worth examining carefully.

‍

The CV as hypothesis

The most useful shift in how to approach evaluating business development candidates in CDMO and pharma services recruitment is to treat the CV not as a record of what someone has done, but as a set of hypotheses about what they're capable of. The screening process is how you test them.

A CV that raises good questions is often more valuable than one that appears to answer all of them. If you find yourself reading a BD profile and wanting to know more, that's usually the right reaction. The ones that feel complete on paper sometimes turn out to have the least depth underneath.

Vector Search supports hiring managers working on senior commercial appointments across pharma services, where getting the screening process right at CV stage makes a material difference to who ends up in front of you.