One of my L&D clients asked me recently if I had any data around where Life Science Commercial Sales Training groups report in their organizations – specifically, into Commercial, HR, or Other.
I didn’t have that info, so we did a quick survey. Thanks to colleagues from the following companies who participated: Akcea, Puma Technology, Bausch Health, Mallinckrodt, Halozyme, Covance, Moderna, Regeneron, Celgene, BMS, Sanofi US, Alnylam, Jazz, Takeda, Biogen, Sage Therapeutics, Genentech, B Braun, UCB, Lundbeck, Ipsen, Sarepta Therapeutics, and Kyowa Kirin.
First off, a couple of high-level data points:
The “Other” choice is interesting. Text entries here included Strategic Medical Affairs; Business Operations; Marketing; and a split (L&D under HR, Sales Training under Commercial).
Reporting into HR occurs in two mid-sized companies, and one large company (see chart below for the four classifications of company size). Reporting into Global L&D occurs with one emerging, and one small company.
As expected, the majority of sales training groups report into the Commercial side, though it’s not entirely uniform. I would have loved to have data from even more life sciences companies, but I suspect the trends would not end up being much different.
This ultra-short survey was designed to be done in 22 seconds, so we didn’t go after a deeper set of data points. In the comments on this post, feel free to add your reactions to the various reporting structures you’ve been part of – advantages, disadvantages, best practices, etc. Would love to enrich this discussion with a robust exchange of ideas and experiences!
Leave a Reply