The pharmaceutical industry is experimenting with new ways of working and dismantling traditional boundaries between roles, hierarchies, and geographies. But what problems are these convergence models solving—and what new challenges are they creating? In this five-part series, we explore these questions. First, let’s examine the pros and cons of Functional Convergence in a field force.
Struggling to get an appointment with a doctor? You’re not alone. Pharmaceutical sales representatives might be in an even worse position. For them, getting face time with a doctor has gone from a routine task to a rare achievement. Ask anyone in the industry, and the complaint is universal: “Doctors just aren’t seeing us anymore.” They don’t seem as interested in the kind of information we have traditionally offered.
This growing distance has left the traditional sales rep in a tough spot, particularly as the Medical Science Liaison Manager (MSL) role continues to gain ground. Since their emergence around the turn of the millennium, MSLs have distinguished themselves by focusing on education and consultation rather than sales. They engage with doctors as peers, providing scientific insights instead of promotional pitches—and doctors appreciate the difference. MSLs are welcomed in ways that their sales-focused counterparts rarely are.
What does this mean for the future of pharmaceutical sales? Some companies are reducing their traditional sales force while expanding their MSL team. Another approach is to blur the lines between these roles, creating a function-agnostic field force. Such a model aims to combine the best of both worlds: deep, expert communication and, of course, effective selling.
Cross-industry Convergence
This shift mirrors a broader trend to cross-industry convergence. The old division of labor is giving way to more flexible collaboration models that are breaking down role-, hierarchy-, and geography-based barriers. In this series, we will examine convergence from multiple angles. In this first article, we are focusing on functional convergence—merging sales and medical roles. Future installments will explore vertical convergence (cross-hierarchical collaboration), expertise convergence (handling multiple therapeutic indications), service convergence (integrating office staff and field service), and geographical convergence (merging country-level operations). If you can think of a sixth model, let us know—we might just owe you a bottle of champagne!
Convergence sounds appealing, doesn’t it? After all, who wants to work in a silo—especially one without windows or a decent coffee machine? Collaboration, open communication, and holistic thinking feel like obvious improvements. But here’s the catch: every solution creates new problems. That’s the curse of organizational design, management, and, perhaps, the human condition itself. And that’s why it’s so important to carefully consider the opportunities and risks of convergence: What problem are we solving? What benefits do we expect? And what trade-offs are we willing to make?
Challenges of a functional convergence
In the case of functional convergence, the problem is clear. Doctors often view meetings with traditional sales reps as a waste of time, preferring targeted answers to specific questions—for instance, about managing side effects. A function-agnostic field force could address these needs, fostering meaningful, high-quality conversations that strengthen the doctor’s connection to the product and the company. Doesn’t everyone say the customer must come first? Functional convergence could be the ultimate expression of that mantra.
That’s the theory. Reality, of course, has a reputation for disagreeing. The new role demands significant expertise and adaptability. On the plus side, these demands could elevate the quality of field service, retaining only the most capable employees. On the downside: Are there enough qualified candidates to begin with? And how intensive would the respective training need to be? Sales reps would have to engage in complex medical discussions, while MSLs would need to master sales techniques—a steep learning curve for both groups.
Legal considerations add another layer of complexity. Pharmaceutical companies are required to keep informational and sales interactions separate—a distinction traditionally maintained by assigning these tasks to different people. So, the problem was solved in the social dimension. In the model, this separation shifts to the time dimension: the same person might deliver an informational discussion one day and a sales pitch the next. In such a case, a high level of sensitivity and a good sense of direction are clearly required to navigate the gray or white zones of the ethical landscape.
Cross-Sector Learning
Other industries have faced similar challenges. In engineering, for example, companies have merged sales and service roles to provide customers with a single point of contact. But this often exacerbates the long-standing dilemma of whether the company in question should keep servicing old equipment or push for a new sale. Traditionally, separate sales and service teams have managed and hidden this conflict, whereas the role internalizes it, placing the paradox squarely in the mind of one individual—the person now responsible for both sales and service. Doesn’t that sound a bit schizophrenic? And might it not undermine the trust-based relationships service professionals traditionally build with customers?
Pharma faces comparable risks. How should field forces be incentivized? Should sales metrics remain the primary benchmark, or should building deeper customer relationships take precedence? Could the dual role erode trust, as doctors question whether their advisor’s insights are tinged with sales motives? For example, might this model complicate the recruitment of doctors for clinical studies if credibility is undermined? What would a convincing convergence narrative look like—one that works internally for the company and externally in the market?
The Endless Quest for the Ideal Division of Labor
These questions underscore the complexities of functional convergence. But they also point to a larger truth that the perfect organizational model doesn’t exist. Ever since humans settled down some 10,000 years ago, we’ve been tinkering with different ways to divide and coordinate work. Progress often feels like a pendulum swinging between specialization and integration, silos and collaboration. Yet, that’s no reason to despair, but rather to keep striving for the best possible structure. And it’s why we’re eager to hear your thoughts, comments, and questions as we continue to explore and write (!) about convergence.
Next up: Vertical convergence. What are the pros and cons of converging your hierarchy?
