Global challenges in the pharmaceutical industry require companies to invest not only in technology but also in a new type of managerial talent. According to estimates by McKinsey & Co, a significant gap has emerged between market demands and leaders’ competencies. Evgeniya Volyanskaya, a partner at the consulting firm RusPartners, explains why this is happening and how to fix the situation.
Agile leadership amid change and uncertainty
The pandemic, global crisis, supply chain disruptions, and subsequent cost increases have made long-term planning impossible even for global players. Since 2020, pharma companies have been operating in a stream of constant change, making resilience a key success factor for both individual leaders and management teams as a whole. “The ability to make decisions under high pressure, prevent burnout, quickly adjust strategy, and lead a team through a series of transformations remains constant for Russian top management, regardless of emerging technologies and the agenda of the day,” believes Olga Glazkova, General Director of Alphasigma Rus.
Although over 75% of pharmaceutical substances in Russia still come from foreign production, according to the “Pharma-2030” strategy, Russian companies must increase production of strategically significant medicines from 67.4% (2022) to 80%. On one hand, such a goal creates a powerful incentive. According to calculations by the marketing agency DSM Group, already in July 2025, localized drugs accounted for 67.3% of the market’s physical volume—compared to 50.2% for the same month the previous year. Furthermore, plans include increasing exports to $3.4 billion and entering new markets in developing countries.
All this requires a different level of managerial competence and, primarily, the ability to balance between fulfilling large-scale state tasks and building a competitive business model against a backdrop of global instability.
In Russia, as in the global market, the impact of AI is recognized as critical. However, the trajectories of its use differ. Worldwide, tools based on artificial intelligence are used for R&D and fundamental breakthroughs—discovering new molecules and advancing personalized medicine.
According to KPMG, about 75% of pharma company CEOs consider AI investments a strategic priority, while over 65% expect a return on them within three years. And major players are already demonstrating results. For example, during the development of the COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer used AI analytics based on Amazon Web Services (AWS) to reduce clinical trial data processing time from several months to several hours. And the American biotechnology company Moderna, thanks to digital platforms and AI models, shortened the path from virus sequencing (decoding its genomic sequences) to vaccine development to just 42 days.
According to Anna Meshcheryakova, General Director of Platform Tretye Mnenie (Third Opinion Platform), in Russia, AI is more often used for automating individual administrative and reporting processes and data analysis, optimizing production, forecasting demand, managing inventory, and commercial processes.
“Meanwhile, brilliant marketing ideas were and remain rare in the market. And they depend, first and foremost, on the abilities of natural intelligence and the creativity of marketing teams,” believes Olga Glazkova. McKinsey emphasizes: only about 15% of AI implementation success is related to the model itself, while 85% is about how the technology is integrated into processes and managed by people.
In this context, leaders require technological vision and a deep understanding of how AI is changing the value chain. Especially considering that, according to 95% of surveyed pharmaceutical company executives, new technologies and AI now influence strategy formation no less than classical market factors.
The ability to effectively implement ESG principles
Global players have long integrated ESG principles—namely, responsible attitude towards nature, high-quality corporate governance, and social responsibility—into their business strategies. In Western countries, the main drivers are investors and consumers. For instance, a Spanish study conducted among 300 pharma companies from 2020–2024 showed that 82% of pharma investors pay primary attention to companies’ ESG metrics, with industry leaders investing in ESG approximately three times more than the average player.
It is noted that 3/4 of consumers will stop buying products from companies that ignore environmental and social responsibility. Those who, conversely, view ESG as an opportunity for leadership have patient satisfaction scores 23% higher.
In Russia, ESG is developing according to a different model. Key roles are played by supply chain partners, financial institutions, and growing expectations from regulators within social policy. And for patients, as Anna Meshcheryakova notes, unlike in Western markets, the determining factors remain the drug’s clinical efficacy, price, and accessibility. Meanwhile, in the context of long-term business sustainability, the ESG agenda does not lose relevance for Russian pharma companies either.
Thus, this creates an additional managerial challenge. Executives need to consider ESG requirements not formally, but as a condition for long-term business sustainability, successful work with international partners, and building an attractive brand.
Competencies at the intersection of business and regulatory affairs
The KPMG CEO Outlook report showed that about 74% of pharma company executives consider regulatory pressure one of the key factors determining business success in the next three years. Along with digitalization, the increasing complexity of the regulatory environment is boosting demand for managers capable of working at the intersection of disciplines: pharmacologists with an understanding of data science, technologists, and commercial leaders with digital literacy. “The importance of the ability to factor in regulatory requirements in advance when forming strategy and investment decisions is growing. In current conditions, teams that can make decisions quickly and take responsibility for them win,” says Anna Meshcheryakova.
It is no coincidence that, according to a ZS Associates survey, 127 executives of multinational biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies paid great attention to personnel policy and at the same time noted a acute need for “boundary-spanning” leaders—personnel who feel at ease in both the technology sphere and classical business management, uniting these areas.
At the same time, the situation is complicated by insufficient development of soft skills. Despite the fact that for 90% of leaders in the pharmaceutical industry, the ability to build collaboration is considered a key factor for successful leadership, in this competency leaders receive some of the lowest effecticiency ratings.
In the context of complex interdisciplinary projects, this gap becomes even more pronounced. “A pharmaceutical leader today lives in a state of dilemma. Almost every strategic step is a choice: to take responsibility for making decisions under constraints or to use those constraints as an explanation for why decisions were not made,” explains Sergey Beloborodov, General Director of the pharmaceutical company CSC Pharma.
Ethics and Trust Management
In an era where any mistake in communication and quality management instantly becomes public, and the trust of patients and partners is a strategic resource, the unchanging foundation remains high ethics, transparency, and social responsibility. This is also precisely why in-depth development of the legal regulation of artificial intelligence in healthcare is currently underway.
The journal Pharmaceutical Executive, which features data on the world’s 50 largest biopharmaceutical companies, notes: although most companies state that they value the trust of the public and their employees, not all make efforts to implement effective changes.
“Basic managerial competencies remain key regardless of the level of technological development. These are responsibility for product quality and safety, the ability to build effective teams, and ensuring the execution of decisions made. Technologies enhance management capabilities but do not replace the need for mature leadership and systematic management,” summarizes Anna Meshcheryakova.
