Parallel Paradigms : The mirror images between Drug Discovery & Development and Recruitment & Career Development

I am intrigued by the parallels between the drug discovery process in the pharmaceutical R&D domain and the recruitment and career development flows in organizations in general. As a disclaimer, I would like to state up-front that I may be way off the charts while describing the technical aspects of the drug discovery process, as I am not a professional scientist per se.

For a start, one of the key steps in the early stages of drug discovery is identifying one or more disease elements and characterizing them; along similar lines, we define and "characterize" jobs/roles and positions to be filled-in the organization. 

On the R&D side, we obtain synthetic organic chemical compounds of diverse molecular shapes, sizes and properties to be screened for initial interactions and activities with one-or more disease elements in a laboratory setting (the “in vitro” screening stage, as it is called) in defined measurement-enabled platforms called “assays”. Multiple assays using different techniques and scientific principles are used to screen and select the preliminary compound candidates that seem to show promise, for further testing. In recruitment, we invite applications from candidates based on the job/role definitions and “screen” them against those criteria in structured screening mechanisms (written-test, group discussion, presentation, one-to-one interview etc.) and progress the most promising candidates in each screening step to the next level. The analogy between high-throughput screening in drug discovery research and large-scale campus recruitment drives conducted by many organizations are difficult to ignore. In the former, thousands of compounds are screened in automated assay platforms for “hits”; in the latter, the “hits” are akin to promising candidates who clear initial recruitment filters and screens.

Compounds which are identified as initial “hits” are progressed towards becoming “leads” by are further refinement and modifications. They are tested for their “Structure-Activity relationship (SAR)” properties keeping the disease targets in view; along similar lines, candidates are closely investigated for their “fit” to the job requirements and organizational culture.

There is one striking difference! Lead compounds are developed further towards becoming a drug by structural and synthetic modifications with repeated iterative testing towards qualifying for a milestone, whereas development for human candidates happens after they are recruited into the organization through very different mechanisms. The term “development” itself has a different connotation in each case.

Further research involves testing lead compounds for efficacy and toxicity where the objective is to advance those compounds which unequivocally demonstrate highest efficacy and safety in living systems (the “in-vivo” experimentation stage). Likewise, in the later stages of recruitment screening, closer to the selection stage, considerable rigor is applied by the screening panel members to identify any “undesirable” traits (similar to toxicity?) in the candidate. All data are thoroughly examined, evaluated and debated before making the final selection decisions in both cases, the outcome of which is the identification of an early candidate drug nomination in research, or the top shortlisted vital few (or a single nomination for hiring), who can be considered for an offer of employment.

There is another notable analogy at this point. While the step of an early candidate drug nomination indicates the signal by the organization to commit to investing in the development of one or more select set of compounds further into preclinical and clinical development, wherein many more filters and stage-gates are designed to appear along the way, an offer of recruitment with the candidate accepting the offer and joining the organization signifies the beginning of a mutual commitment between the two parties to contribute and invest in each other in a career journey.

The voyage of discovery and development of a potential drug compound is similar to the career path progression of an employee in an organization. New hires are tested for their ability to cope with the demands of their roles through challenging assignments with defined and stretch objectives , within boundaries of organizational policies, cultural norms, practices and processes. Performance management systems facilitate evaluation of employee performance along various dimensions. Similarly, drug candidate compounds are put through preclinical studies with the rigor of GLP (Good Laboratory Practices) and clinical trials (in alignment with GCP-Good Clinical Practices). One can appreciate the functional similarities of intent between GLP, GCP and organizational policies and/or processes.

Decisions on promotions for employees to higher positions with greater responsibilities are similar to stage-gate decision points in the drug development process such as the IND approval or clinical trial phase transition approvals ( e.g. moving a clinical drug candidate from Phase 1 to Phase II in a clinical trial). While the organization invests considerable amounts of time and money in the clinical development of compounds through various controlled and regulated studies, it also commits time and money to learning, training and development programs for employees through a multitude of interventions.

Promising clinical drug candidate compounds consistently reflecting the most positive and superlative profiles on safety and efficacy parameters through various studies and trials progress further towards becoming drugs; likewise, employees who demonstrate highest traits in performance and potential advance in their careers to the upper realms of the organization. Needless to say, attrition is a common “side-effect” in both compound and career development, though the rates vary considerably between the two.

In both the R&D and the recruitment-career development tracks in organizations, human beings are the decision-makers. What is interesting is that on the R&D side, highest standards of scientific objectivity and rigor are applied in decision making, whereas on the other side, subjectivity and biases often tend to creep in, even though organizations do their best to minimize or eliminate them.

In summary, the apparently symmetrical alignment of the two pathways is curiously fascinating, which reminds of the movie of the 1980's, “The 36th Chamber of Shaolin”. The film depicts the story of a novice who begins his physical, psychological and spiritual journey to attain the status of an esteemed Shaolin monk, wherein he masters the martial arts through a series of training “chambers”, each with a level of difficulty that progressively increases in orders of magnitude from one chamber to the next.

Although all discovered medicines or organizational leaders may not represent the ideal in terms of the efficacy-safety balance (for drugs) or performance-potential dimensions (for leaders), they are both essential for our continuing existence.

May the “best persons” (and compounds) win!