The Human Side of Pharma BD: Patience, Persistence, and Truly Understanding Client Needs
Pragathi Yadhati , Client Relations Officer, PozeScaf Inc
Pragathi Yadhati is a Client Relations Officer at PozeScaf Inc and Chief Business Officer for healthtech startups, ScribeJoy, and NuMd. Since 2019, she has advised pharma organisations on relationship-focused business development and strategic partnerships, fundraising and connecting companies with investors. She served on the advisory board of IIT Jodhpur and brought a people-centered, empathetic approach to partnerships.
Abstract:
Business development in pharma is ultimately about people, not transactions. Success comes from deeply understanding a client’s scientific and strategic needs and helping them reach their goals. This interview explores why patience, empathy, thoughtful decision-making and persistence are essential for transforming early conversations into meaningful scientific partnerships.
1. In an industry driven by innovation and urgency, how do you balance the need for rapid deal-making with the long-term patience required to build authentic scientific partnerships?
When we are authentic, building relationships doesn’t take long. Sometimes we connect with someone even in the very first meeting. The key is to be open, authentic, and transparent. It really comes down to being relational rather than transactional.
A BD’s primary goal is to understand the client’s goals, promise only what can truly be delivered by having clear discussions with the scientific team, and then fulfill that promise. In my experience, thoughtful, honest, and genuine engagement early on actually reduces delays later in the partnership.
2. Pharma BD often relies on deciphering unspoken priorities. How do you identify a client’s true scientific and strategic needs when they are not explicitly articulated?
Listen actively. Ask questions.
A lot of times, clients share only a surface description of what they need because they are still refining their own thinking. I have learned that the real picture often becomes clearer when you pay attention to how they speak along with what they say. Their tone, their hesitation around certain points, or the part of the project they keep returning to usually reveals what matters most to them.
I also ask simple, open questions like, “What is the biggest challenge for you right now?”, “If you could remove one bottleneck, what would it be?”, or “If you could get assistance, which would you choose first?” These questions help clients express deeper concerns, whether it is about timelines, scientific uncertainty, internal bandwidth, or cost constraints.
3. Empathy plays a pivotal role in relationship-building. Can you describe a moment when empathetic listening changed the direction or outcome of a major partnership discussion?
It is not for mere relationship building but as humans we must all be empathetic. Moreover, I have great admiration for people who work in this industry because their work touches lives and helps those who are suffering.
There were a few moments that come to mind. In one instance, a client hesitated to ask for an additional quantity of a compound. But from their voice, I could sense they needed something more. I enquired warmly and told them I would check with my team. After discussing with our management and scientific team, we offered to prepare the extra quantity and charge only the raw material price. This simple gesture helped them and, in turn, helped build a long-term relationship.
Another example was working with a small virtual biotech company that did not have a big scientific team. They never directly asked for help beyond the project, but we could sense the pressure they were under. We offered to act as an extended team for them, which made the collaboration smoother and strengthened our relationship.
Some things are not explicitly said, but when you listen empathetically and place utmost importance on the client’s needs, you begin to hear more than what is spoken. That gives you the impetus to go the extra mile to see what is possible and do it to support them. A true win-win relationship happens when you help them succeed; you win automatically, if not today, then in the near future.
4. Persistence is essential, yet it can be misunderstood as pressure. How do you maintain consistent follow-through without overwhelming or alienating potential partners?
Fall in love with helping clients for a purpose greater than simply getting work. Research what each client is working on, understand why their work matters, and explore how you can contribute your bit to that nobler purpose. This naturally builds admiration for the client and strengthens your intent to help them.
Gently ask them to share their needs and explain how your offerings can alleviate their pain points, but always make sure the message is personalized. I put myself in their shoes and ask, “What kind of message would comfort me rather than pressure me?” Then I compose a shorter follow-up, either with the same content or a refined version of the earlier message, written with care and affection. It is simply a gentle reminder that we are there to support them if they have a need.
I genuinely have affection for people, especially when they are working on important and meaningful problems. Who says business must be serious or robotic? I prefer to be human, and sometimes even use small emojis that brighten someone’s day. At the very least, my follow-through should make the client feel lighter or refreshed.
If they need something, they will certainly write back. Until then, have patience and love your work.
5. As pharma collaborations become more complex and interdisciplinary, how do you help clients move from problem definition to clarity without oversimplifying scientific challenges?
Clarity often comes not from simplifying the science, but from simplifying the conversation around it. The role of business development is to act as a bridge, helping teams clearly articulate the problem they are trying to solve and why it matters at that moment.
Many clients may have deep expertise in one area, such as biology, but need support in understanding how other disciplines like chemistry, AI, or computational approaches can complement their work and help refine the problem statement. Complexity often arises because different stakeholders view the same challenge through different lenses.
By listening carefully and asking clarifying questions, it becomes possible to move from a broad problem statement to a shared understanding of priorities and expectations. This brings structure to complexity without oversimplifying scientific challenges.
6. With increasing reliance on virtual interactions and digital tools, how do you build credibility and trust early in a partnership when in-person engagement is limited?
Honesty and sincerity often speak even louder in a virtual setting. In in-person meetings, there are many surrounding distractions. In virtual interactions, the voice is clearer, facial expressions are more visible, and attention is more focused. When someone is on camera, authenticity becomes more apparent, and it is harder to hide intent. This makes sincerity especially important when building credibility early in a partnership without face-to-face engagement.
When in-person interaction is limited, small details matter even more. Showing up prepared, being punctual, and following through on what is promised creates an immediate sense of reliability and respect. These actions quietly reinforce trust without the need for excessive reassurance.
At the core, trust still comes from human connection. Taking a few moments to understand the person behind the role, listening attentively, and showing genuine interest in their challenges makes virtual conversations feel personal rather than transactional. When people feel heard and respected, distance becomes far less of a barrier to meaningful collaboration.
Finally, staying connected to one’s purpose and approaching each interaction with genuine respect for the work the client is doing helps anchor the relationship. When both sides recognise a shared sense of purpose, trust develops naturally, regardless of the format of the interaction.
7. Pharma partnerships often fail due to a lack of cultural or communication alignment rather than scientific issues. How do you evaluate and cultivate interpersonal compatibility across organisations?
Scientific alignment may bring organisations to the table, but it is cultural and communication alignment that determines whether two organisations collaborate effectively and sustain the partnership.
It does not take more than the first few interactions to observe how teams listen to each other, how they respond to questions, and how clearly they communicate expectations. These early exchanges often reveal whether there is mutual respect and shared intent, which are critical beyond scientific fit.
As collaborations progress, interpersonal compatibility becomes visible at the interfaces between organisations. This shows up in how openly information is shared, how consistently commitments are honored, and how thoughtfully challenges are addressed across teams. When both sides operate with transparency, clarity, and accountability, deliveries tend to be smoother and trust strengthens naturally.
On the other hand, misalignment often surfaces through inconsistencies, lack of openness, delayed responses, or unclear ownership. These signals indicate gaps in communication culture between organisations rather than scientific shortcomings. Over time, cultural and communication alignment, or the lack of it, becomes evident through every meeting and email exchange, directly impacting the health of the partnership.
8. When dealing with long sales cycles and extended evaluation timelines, what strategies help you maintain momentum while respecting the client’s internal processes?
When client needs are clearly understood, patience follows naturally. The focus shifts from closing quickly to genuinely helping clients move through their process. Over time, this approach leads to more meaningful and lasting collaborations.
In pharma and biotech, long sales cycles are common. Some organisations are navigating grant timelines, some are at the very beginning of their journey, and others are deeply immersed in scientific work while managing internal constraints. These phases take time, and they deserve respect.
Periodic check-ins driven by genuine curiosity, such as asking how priorities are evolving or whether support is needed, help keep conversations alive without creating pressure. Sometimes, simply listening is the most valuable contribution.
Momentum can also be sustained by adding thoughtful value between touchpoints, such as sharing relevant insights, articles, or connections that align with the client’s work, always with context and intention. Follow-ups should never exist for their own sake, but should be rooted in a desire to help.
9. Decision-making in BD is rarely binary. How do you approach complex, multi-stakeholder negotiations where scientific, regulatory, and commercial priorities must simultaneously be considered?
Decision-making in business development is hardly ever a simple yes or no. Before any decision is made, internal alignment is a must. Discussing with and bringing together, if needed, scientific, regulatory, project management, and procurement teams helps create a realistic picture of timelines, feasibility, costs, and potential challenges.
Each stakeholder views priorities differently, and it is important to remember that the perspective of each stakeholder is valid. The key is to create a shared understanding of what really matters at that stage of the partnership. Once that clarity is in place, complex discussions become easier to navigate.
Breaking decisions into smaller steps, setting clear milestones, and maintaining open communication help keep everyone aligned. This approach not only supports better decisions in the present but also builds the trust needed for long-term, future-focused collaborations.
10. Could you share an example where patience played a decisive role in turning an initial “no” or “not yet” into a successful, long-term collaboration?
One of the truths I learned during my time at film school is that often one door opens only after knocking on a thousand others. After attending hundreds of auditions, one opportunity finally comes through. I have found this to be equally true in business development.
In this field, “no” and “not yet” are far more common than “yes.” Importantly, “no” or “not yet” rarely means never. As part of my approach, I invest time upfront in understanding potential partners, researching where real synergies exist, and identifying how my organisation’s capabilities could genuinely support their goals.
One example that comes to mind occurred more than once with different partners. In these cases, a “not yet” response prompted deeper conversation. By understanding their situation better, it became clear that while the scientific fit existed, they were still in the fundraising phase, something not always visible on a company website or pipeline page.
Rather than disengaging, I stayed in touch with genuine intent. Periodic check-ins focused on understanding how things were progressing, sharing relevant information when appropriate, and making thoughtful introductions when there was alignment. This continued patiently over nearly three years. Eventually, before any project was requested, the client reached out on their own and issued a purchase order.
What made the experience especially meaningful was not just receiving the order, but having witnessed their journey and growth along the way. By that point, there was a genuine emotional investment in their success, which automatically translated into stronger commitment from our teams to deliver what the client needed. There were other cases where the timeline was shorter, but the pattern was similar.
11. How do you tailor your communication style when interacting with scientists, clinicians, procurement teams, and C-suite decision-makers who may all have different expectations?
I speak two languages. The first is universal and human, keeping conversations authentic, open, and clear, with genuine effort to understand the person behind the role. The second is their language, focusing on what matters most to them. Scientists value depth and clarity, clinicians focus on impact and outcomes, procurement teams prioritise timelines and cost, and C-suite leaders look for strategic alignment and risk awareness.
12. In your experience, what differentiates a transactional vendor relationship from a trusted scientific partnership, and how do you consciously cultivate the latter?
Genuine interest in the client’s goals, transparent communication, and consistent follow-through are what differentiate a trusted scientific partnership. It is cultivated by staying anchored to a noble purpose of enabling the client’s success.
13. With the increasing role of data, AI, and digital tools in BD, how do you ensure technology enhances - not replaces - the human relationships at the core of pharmacollaboration?
Human qualities such as consciousness, emotional intelligence, empathy, integrity, ethical judgment, and understanding subtext cannot be replaced by AI. Technology should be used as a capable assistant, leveraging its strengths in data processing and analysis to save time, reduce costs, and create clarity, while human judgment remains at the center of collaboration.
14. Looking ahead, what qualities will define the next generation of pharma BD leaders, particularly in terms of emotional intelligence, strategic patience, and client-centric thinking?
Combining intellect with consciousness, meaning listening empathetically while remaining authentic throughout, exercising ethical judgment, focusing on solving issues holistically and effectively, having genuine interest in fellow humans working on bigger causes, and holding a noble purpose of contributing to a better world.
