A pharmaceutical sales force is traditionally divided up by therapeutic areas. The more expertise, the better. But many companies nowadays question this approach. In Part 3 of our Models of Convergence series, we examine the shift from specialists to adaptable generalists. Could expertise convergence unlock new benefits for customers and the industry alike?
Imagine your dishwasher breaks down. Service company A proposes four separate appointments with different specialists: one for the motor, another for the control panel, a third for the door seal, and a fourth for the pump. Each promises detailed explanations, diagrams, scientific precision—and perhaps makes a subtle jab at the competition’s repair methods. Company B, however, sends a single technician who fixes everything in an hour.
Which would you prefer?
The choice seems obvious, yet the pharmaceutical industry often resembles Company A. Most firms employ highly specialized sales representatives, each covering a single therapeutic indication. Some subdivide even further: for some years in the breast cancer field, for example, one rep focused on early-stage tumors, another on advanced cases. In one company you could even double that as responsibilities were split for the two breast cancer compounds. But many general oncologists deal with a wide spectrum of diseases and therapies, potentially requiring visits from half a dozen or more specialists representing the same company – and of course competing companies send representatives as well. Just imagine an oncologist who specializes in receiving sales reps and gains unmatched knowledge of every therapy. The catch? There’d be no time left to treat patients.
This challenge has led some companies to explore expertise convergence, with one representative serving as a comprehensive point of contact for all therapeutic needs. At first glance, it’s an elegant solution—but is it truly viable?
The Case for Generalists
The argument for a generalist sales force is compelling. Doctors face relentless time pressures. A 2020 global survey found that 50% of oncologists were at risk of burnout. Nine in ten German general practitioners reported feeling overwhelmed by administrative tasks, with only 15% believing they had enough time for patients. Cultural theorist Georg Franck has suggested we now live in an “economy of attention”, where the scarcest resource isn’t money but focus. Competition for attention defines the reality pharmaceutical representatives face every day as they struggle to just get a foot in the door.
The typical response? More reps, more visits, more appointments. But isn’t this strategy risk alienating already stressed doctors? If the industry truly values “customer centricity”—if the doctor is the king of this metaphorical kingdom—then aligning sales structures with their needs is essential. Some already shut the door to all pharma reps. A single, well-informed point of contact could save time, reduce frustration, and foster better engagement. Wouldn’t doctors prefer one trusted advisor to a parade of specialists?
Of course, there’s a clear financial incentive at play: employing many sales reps who only engage with doctors sporadically is an expensive proposition. In contrast to that, a generalist field force could foster more frequent and valuable interactions with fewer representatives.
Insights from other Industries
The single-point-of-contact model thrives elsewhere. Amazon succeeds because it offers nearly everything in one place, sparing customers the hassle of navigating multiple sites (or even venturing into brick-and-mortar stores). Full-service marketing agencies, too, bundle services—advertising, social media, SEO—under one roof. Yet critics often ask whether these agencies can truly excel in all areas. The question remains universal: How much complexity can you consolidate without compromising quality?
That’s why creating a generalist sales force is no small task. Oncological knowledge, for example, has expanded dramatically, with therapies becoming more nuanced and specialized. Sales reps take pride in their expertise in a specific niche. Asking them to become generalists might feel like asking a pianist to master both the violin and the cello. Yet for top performers the opportunity could be appealing—a chance to broaden their repertoire, learn new instruments, new tools and skills, and thrive in a role that demands versatility and adaptability. But how do you find, how do you train someone for such a role? And even more importantly, how would doctors respond to this shift? If we consider this model for field medical staff too, these questions are even more pressing.
A New Narrative for Pharmaceutical Field Forces
Doctors, after all, go through a rigorous lifelong learning process to stay up to date. Their professional identity is rooted not just in their white coat but also in their deep expertise. Would a generalist rep, equipped with more breadth but less depth, still be respected? Pharmaceutical companies will need to craft a compelling narrative to persuade both doctors and their own field teams.
Perhaps the key lies in offering more than technical data. Many general oncologists don’t need exhaustive details buried in the fine print or the appendix of a study. What they truly need is clarity—relevant findings, concise insights, and above all, pattern recognition. A good rep connects the dots: Which drugs share similar side effects across various indications? Who are the high-risk patients? Perhaps it’s even about more practical concerns: How can workflow challenges or staff shortages be addressed?
The specialist rep resembles a diver who plunges into the depths of specific topics to retrieve treasures of detailed knowledge. The generalist, meanwhile, acts as a skilled navigator, guiding doctors through the vast sea of information to ensure they stay oriented and on course.
Balancing the Scales – Externally and Internally
Redefining field service doesn’t just impact external relations; it transforms internal dynamics, too. Specialized sales forces are easier to manage: priorities are set, and a particular therapy can be pushed. Generalists, by contrast, might flip this structure, allowing doctors, the customer-kings, to drive conversations and set their own priorities – and as kings do, they love to set priorities. How can you still ensure your most relevant indication gets discussed at all? Would marketing lose influence—or gain it, as generalists lean more heavily on them for support in managing broader responsibilities? How do companies strike this new balance? What control and feedback mechanisms would need to evolve?
As with any convergence model, solving one challenge creates new ones. Beneath these practical challenges lies a deeper question: In our information or information overload age, in today’s “economy of attention”, should we prioritize generalists who connect the dots or specialists who can also answer deep-dive questions? Or do we need both? Anyone who’s looking for simple answers should stick to washing machines. In the pharmaceutical industry, however, there seems to be no easy general solution—only specialized answers for individual cases.
