Pharmaceutical recruitment: why the evaluation of agencies must be structured

Nicolas Grancher • 28 novembre 2025

The pharmaceutical industry is transforming, yet its methods for selecting HR partners often remain unchanged.


While technology and data are redefining how companies develop, validate, and commercialize their products, the selection of recruitment agencies still relies far too often on informal practices: verbal references, historical relationships, or marketing promises.


A recent analysis highlights a structural gap in the market: the absence of standardized mechanisms to evaluate the real performance of agencies.

This weakness slows down recruitment processes, complicates comparisons between service providers, and undermines the quality of decision-making.


To bridge this gap, four levers appear essential:

  • structured performance verification,
  • standardization of evaluation criteria,
  • integration of tracking processes,
  • and peer validation.

Applied to pharmaceutical recruitment, these levers can transform how laboratories and biotechs choose their partners.


Verification: a must in a sector where proof is the norm


In the pharmaceutical industry, nothing is decided without validation.
Clinical trials, quality audits, regulatory compliance everything relies on verification and traceability.


Yet when it comes to recruiting the talent who will lead these critical projects, companies still frequently rely on informal references.

An HR director admits he “trusts a certain agency because he has worked with them for ten years.” But such loyalty does not guarantee current performance.


Practices, teams, and methods evolve: trust must be reinforced by updated, measurable evidence.


Building a “Verification Infrastructure”


Implementing a verification infrastructure means going beyond anecdotal testimonials:

  • Collecting performance data validated by clients (success rates, average time-to-hire, satisfaction).
  • Standardizing case studies to ensure comparability between agencies.
  • Replacing informal telephone references with structured and verified feedback.


Such a verification system would enable pharmaceutical companies and biotechs to select their partners based on tangible evidence rather than reputation or communication.


Standardizing evaluation: establishing common benchmarks


Today, each company evaluates its agencies using its own criteria—sometimes even according to the personal preferences of individual managers.
The result: no common basis to objectively compare provider performance.


Why standardization is essential


Standardizing evaluation criteria allows companies to:

  • ensure fair comparisons,
  • identify each agency’s true strengths,
  • and reduce the selection time, which is often excessive.


According to available studies, choosing a recruitment agency currently takes nearly 30 days on average—a delay that could be cut in half if data were structured and uniform.


Towards a common framework


In the pharmaceutical sector, such standardization could rely on:

  • the quality of submitted profiles (alignment between skills and regulatory requirements),
  • response speed,
  • stability of placed candidates after 6 or 12 months,
  • process compliance (verifications, confidentiality, adherence to ethical rules).


A shared framework would help HR teams make informed decisions and recognize agencies that consistently perform well over time.


Integrating processes: from fragmented tracking to full visibility


Most pharmaceutical HR departments use a patchwork of tools: internal spreadsheets, ATS systems, emails, supplier portals, and more.
The result: dispersed data, incomplete tracking, and learning that is difficult to capture.


The need for “workflow integration”


The idea is simple: unify the platforms and processes used to track HR partners.


An integrated system would allow companies to:

  • monitor project progress in real time,
  • compare performance by agency, job type, or region,
  • centralize feedback from candidates and managers,
  • and automatically generate consolidated reports.


Benefits for the pharmaceutical sector


In an environment where time-to-hire directly impacts the innovation chain (particularly clinical trials or product launch projects), workflow integration could significantly reduce delays.


It would also provide greater visibility to global teams in large pharmaceutical companies, who often struggle to oversee local performance.

Such a system is not just a digital tool: it represents a governance approach in which all stakeholders (HR, hiring managers, agencies) share the same data and speak the same language.


Peer validation: collective intelligence serving better decisions


In a saturated market, it is increasingly difficult for a pharmaceutical company to distinguish marketing claims from true added value.
This is where a peer validation system becomes invaluable: a structured mechanism enabling HR professionals to share and verify recommendations among peers.


From rumor to collective data


Today, recommendations circulate mainly informally: an HR director recommends an agency to a colleague, without consolidated data supporting the advice.


A peer validation system would formalize and aggregate this feedback:

  • Which agencies achieve the best results on regulatory profiles?
  • Which are the most effective for production roles?
  • Which biotechs recommend which partners, and why?


This shared HR knowledge creates a powerful and verifiable collective intelligence—far more reliable than simple word-of-mouth.


Specific value for biotechs and CDMOs


Smaller organizations—biotechs or CDMOs—often lack:

  • large internal HR networks,
  • experience with multiple agencies,
  • resources to conduct trial-and-error cycles.

A peer validation system gives them direct access to the true market reputation of agencies.


Towards a proof-based pharmaceutical recruitment ecosystem


Combining the four levers—verification, standardization, integration, and peer validation—paves the way for a more mature and transparent HR ecosystem.


In this environment:

  • Agencies would be judged not on their narrative but on their measured impact.
  • HR teams would no longer spend weeks comparing PowerPoint presentations but would analyze reliable performance data.
  • Candidates would benefit from more coherent, faster, and more ethical processes.


The concrete benefits of such a model


  • Time savings: shorter agency selection cycles,
  • Higher recruitment quality: alignment between real performance and business needs,
  • Strengthened trust: thanks to transparency and cross-checking,
  • Cost optimization: selecting partners who truly deliver.


This model would enable pharmaceutical companies to professionalize their relationships with agencies and better manage their Talent Acquisition strategy.


A strong parallel with pharmaceutical culture


Evidence-based recruitment is not foreign to the pharmaceutical sector.
It is, in fact, the natural extension of its scientific philosophy.


Laboratories base their decisions on clinical data, reproducibility, and peer review.
Recruitment must follow the same principle:

observe, measure, prove.

Implementing these structures means applying to recruitment the same rigor used to ensure the safety, quality, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products.

Structuring to Decide Better


The conclusion is clear: the pharmaceutical sector lacks standardized tools and frameworks to assess the performance of its recruitment partners.
But the solutions already exist.


By combining:

  • a verification infrastructure,
  • standardized evaluation criteria,
  • workflow integration,
  • and peer validation,

pharmaceutical companies can finally align their HR practices with the scientific rigor that defines their DNA.


This shift is not about digitalizing for the sake of digitalization, but about professionalizing decision-making.
About giving meaning to data.


About building an ecosystem where trust is earned through evidence, not promises.


In a world where every molecule, every trial, and every dossier must be validated, recruitment can no longer remain the exception.
It, too, must become a science grounded in proof.

FAQ

  • Why is it necessary to structure the evaluation of recruitment agencies in the pharmaceutical sector?

    Because the sector relies entirely on evidence, traceability, and rigor. Paradoxically, the selection of recruitment agencies is still too often based on subjective criteria: historical relationships, informal recommendations, or marketing.

    Structuring the evaluation process makes it possible to base decisions on measurable data, improve the quality of recruitment, and accelerate hiring timelines.

  • What is the main issue with the current model for selecting recruitment agencies?

    There is no standardized mechanism to objectively compare recruitment agencies.

    Consequences include:

    difficulty assessing real performance,

    biased comparisons,

    selection processes that take too long,

    misalignment between HR decisions and actual business needs.

  • What are the four essential levers for professionalizing the selection of recruitment agencies?

    Structured performance verification

    Standardization of evaluation criteria

    Integration of processes and workflows

    Peer validation

    Combined, these levers create a system based on evidence rather than promises.

  • Why is verification so important in pharmaceutical recruitment?

    Because the pharmaceutical industry operates entirely through verified processes: audits, clinical trials, regulatory compliance, and traceability.

    It is inconsistent for the selection of HR partners to fall outside this logic.

    Verification makes it possible to obtain:

    concrete evidence of performance,

    comparable data across agencies,

    a real — not “marketing-driven” — view of the results achieved.

What candidates really feel during a pharmaceutical interview

par Nicolas Grancher • 30 janvier 2026
An interview in the pharmaceutical industry rarely leaves candidates indifferent. Even experienced professionals, accustomed to demanding environments, often walk away with a mix of relief, doubt, and unanswered questions. “Was I clear enough?” “Did I say what I was supposed to say?” “Was it too formal? Not formal enough?” “Did we have the right feeling?” These questions are universal. Yet, they are rarely voiced. In a sector as rigorous as the pharmaceutical industry, emotions tend to have little space in the official discourse, even though they are omnipresent in candidates’ real experiences. This article aims to put words to what candidates truly go through during an interview, in order to better understand it, reduce unnecessary anxiety… and regain a sense of control over the experience. Immediate tension: being assessed without losing credibility From the very first minutes, many candidates experience a familiar sensation: the tension of being evaluated. Interviews are often structured, highly framed, and sometimes very technical. The setting is established quickly: competencies, responsibilities, compliance, processes. This framework can create a paradoxical feeling: - on one hand, it is reassuring (you know what to expect), - on the other, it is pressurising (you feel observed and analysed). Many candidates experience: - fear of giving an approximate answer, - concern about not being “at the expected level,” - the feeling that every word matters. This tension is normal. It does not indicate a lack of competence or poor preparation. It reflects an environment where mistakes carry a high cost. The weight of formality: between respect and distance Another frequent feeling is formality. In the pharmaceutical sector, interviews are often: - highly structured, - minimally improvised, - conducted by several interviewers. For some candidates, this framework feels safe. For others, it creates a sense of relational distance. Many candidates internally ask themselves: - “Can I be myself?” - “Should I stay strictly factual?” - “Is it appropriate to show my motivation?” This internal questioning can lead to significant mental fatigue. Candidates constantly juggle between who they are and who they believe they should appear to be. The strange feeling of constantly having to “prove” oneself Even for experienced profiles, interviews often revive a familiar sensation: the need to justify oneself. To justify: - career choices, - transitions, - periods of doubt, - technical limitations. Some candidates feel a sense of unfairness: “My career path is coherent why do I still have to defend it?” This feeling is particularly strong in a sector that values stability, compliance, and linear progression. Atypical career paths, although increasingly common, often require more explanation. Post-interview doubt: a universal experience Once the interview is over, another phase begins: the internal debrief. In the hours or days that follow, many candidates replay the conversation mentally: - a response they could have phrased differently, - a question they misunderstood, - a moment of hesitation. This doubt is amplified by two factors common in the pharmaceutical sector: - long response times, - limited or no detailed feedback. When information is missing, interpretation takes over. And interpretation fuels self-criticism. The “feeling”: a source of hope… and anxiety The feeling plays an ambiguous role in the candidate experience. When the exchange is smooth, human, and respectful, candidates often leave feeling hopeful. When it is colder or very formal, anxiety sets in. What many candidates don’t realise is that: - a very formal interview is not necessarily a negative signal, - a good interaction does not guarantee a positive decision. From the recruiter’s perspective, “feeling” does not always mean immediate alignment. It may simply reflect a highly standardised professional framework. The fear of not having been “enough” - Clear enough. - Precise enough. - Technical enough. - Convincing enough. This fear is particularly strong among candidates who: - compare themselves to others, - are aware of market tension, - know that similar profiles are competing for the role. It can create a lingering impression of never doing enough, even when the background is solid. What candidates rarely realise… but is very real  One important point deserves to be stated clearly: there is uncertainty on the recruiter’s side as well. Recruiters and hiring managers in the pharmaceutical sector: doubt - compare, - hesitate, - arbitrate. Silence or hesitation is not always linked to a negative impression. More often, it reflects the complexity of the decision-making process. How to better navigate the interview experience While not all parameters are within a candidate’s control, some levers can help: Accept discomfort Discomfort is part of the process. Resisting it only increases tension. Focus on clarity rather than performance Being understandable is more valuable than being impressive. Remember that an interview is a two-way meeting You are also assessing the environment, the team, and the culture. Avoid overinterpreting immediately afterward Let emotions settle before drawing conclusions. Regaining agency as a candidate Putting words to what you feel helps reduce confusion. Realising that these emotions are widely shared makes it easier to put things into perspective. An interview is not a verdict on your professional worth. It is one step, in a specific context, at a specific moment in time.

Ce que les candidats ressentent vraiment lors d’un entretien pharmaceutique

par Nicolas Grancher • 30 janvier 2026
Un entretien dans l’industrie pharmaceutique laisse rarement indifférent. Même les profils expérimentés, habitués aux environnements exigeants, en ressortent souvent avec un mélange de soulagement, de doute et d’interrogations. « Est-ce que j’ai été assez clair·e ? » « Est-ce que j’ai dit ce qu’il fallait ? » « Est-ce que c’était trop formel ? Pas assez ? » « Est-ce que j’ai eu le bon feeling ? » Ces questions sont universelles. Pourtant, elles sont rarement exprimées. Parce que dans un secteur aussi rigoureux que le pharmaceutique, les émotions ont peu de place dans le discours officiel , alors qu’elles sont omniprésentes dans l’expérience réelle des candidats. Cet article propose de mettre des mots sur ce que vivent vraiment les candidats lors d’un entretien, afin de mieux comprendre, de dédramatiser… et de reprendre un peu de maîtrise sur l’expérience. Une tension immédiate : être évalué sans perdre sa crédibilité Dès les premières minutes, une sensation s’installe chez beaucoup de candidats : la tension de l’évaluation . Les entretiens sont souvent structurés, cadrés, parfois très techniques. Le décor est posé rapidement : on parle compétences, responsabilités, conformité, processus. Ce cadre peut générer un sentiment paradoxal : d’un côté, il rassure (on sait à quoi s’attendre), de l’autre, il met sous pression (on se sent observé, analysé). Beaucoup de candidats ressentent alors : la peur de dire une approximation, la crainte de ne pas être “au niveau attendu”, l’impression que chaque mot compte. Cette tension est normale. Elle ne signifie ni un manque de compétence, ni un défaut de préparation. Elle est le reflet d’un environnement où l’erreur a un coût élevé . Le poids du formalisme : entre respect et distance Un autre ressenti fréquent est celui du formalisme . Dans le secteur pharmaceutique, les entretiens sont souvent : très structurés, peu improvisés, menés par plusieurs interlocuteurs. Pour certains candidats, ce cadre est sécurisant. Pour d’autres, il crée une forme de distance relationnelle. Beaucoup se demandent alors : « Est-ce que je peux être moi-même ? » « Est-ce que je dois rester très factuel·le ? » « Est-ce que montrer mes motivations est approprié ? » Ce questionnement interne peut générer une fatigue mentale importante. Le candidat jongle en permanence entre ce qu’il est et ce qu’il pense devoir montrer . Le sentiment étrange de devoir “prouver” en permanence Même pour des profils expérimentés, l’entretien ravive souvent une sensation bien connue : devoir se justifier . Justifier : ses choix de carrière, ses transitions, ses périodes de doute, ses limites techniques. Certains candidats ressentent une forme d’injustice : « Mon parcours est cohérent, pourquoi dois-je encore le défendre ? » Ce sentiment est d’autant plus fort que ce secteur valorise la stabilité, la conformité et la progression linéaire. Les parcours atypiques, bien que de plus en plus fréquents, demandent souvent plus d’explications. Le doute après l’entretien : un classique universel Une fois l’entretien terminé, une autre phase commence : le débrief intérieur . Dans les heures ou les jours qui suivent, beaucoup de candidats repassent mentalement l’échange : une réponse qu’ils auraient pu formuler autrement, une question mal comprise, un moment de flottement. Ce doute est amplifié par deux éléments fréquents dans notre secteur: des délais de réponse longs, peu de feedback détaillé. L’absence d’information laisse place à l’interprétation. Et l’interprétation nourrit l’auto-critique. Le feeling : une source d’espoir… et d’inquiétude Le feeling occupe une place ambiguë dans le ressenti candidat. Quand l’échange est fluide, humain, respectueux, beaucoup repartent avec de l’espoir. Quand il est plus froid ou très formel, l’inquiétude s’installe. Mais ce que beaucoup ignorent, c’est que : un entretien très formel n’est pas forcément un mauvais signal, un bon échange ne garantit pas une décision positive. Le feeling, côté recruteur, ne signifie pas toujours adhésion immédiate. Il peut simplement refléter un cadre professionnel très normé . La peur de ne pas avoir été “assez” Assez clair·e. Assez précis·e. Assez technique. Assez convaincant·e. Cette peur est particulièrement forte chez les candidats qui : se comparent beaucoup, connaissent la tension du marché, savent que d’autres profils similaires sont en lice. Elle peut générer une impression diffuse de ne jamais en faire assez , même lorsque le parcours est solide. Ce que les candidats ressentent rarement… mais qui est pourtant réel Un point important à rappeler : côté recruteur aussi, il y a de l’incertitude. Les recruteurs et managers du secteur pharmaceutique : doutent comparent, hésitent arbitrent. Le silence ou l’hésitation ne sont pas toujours liés à une mauvaise impression. Ils sont souvent liés à la complexité de la décision. Comment mieux vivre l’expérience d’entretien Sans pouvoir contrôler tous les paramètres, les candidats peuvent agir sur certains leviers : 1. Accepter la part d’inconfort L’inconfort fait partie de l’exercice. Le refuser augmente la tension. 2. Se concentrer sur la clarté plutôt que la performance Être compréhensible vaut mieux qu’être impressionnant. 3. Se rappeler que l’entretien est une rencontre Vous évaluez aussi l’environnement, l’équipe, la culture. 4. Ne pas surinterpréter à chaud Laissez retomber l’émotion avant de tirer des conclusions. Reprendre du pouvoir côté candidat Mettre des mots sur ce que l’on ressent permet de sortir de la confusion. Comprendre que ces émotions sont partagées par beaucoup aide à relativiser. L’entretien n’est pas un verdict sur votre valeur. C’est une étape, dans un contexte donné, à un moment donné.