Over-managed Gen X marketers, over-relied-upon experience, and why Indian pharma’s marketing speed problem is self-inflicted.
Executive Summary:
The purpose of this article is to provoke a necessary leadership rethink within Indian pharmaceutical marketing. Indian pharma is not short of talent; it is constrained by over-centralized control. As product life cycles compress and competition intensifies, Gen X marketers – arguably the most strategically equipped cohort – remain under-trusted and over-managed, positioned awkwardly between legacy leadership and execution-focused Gen Z teams. This article argues that excessive reliance on experience, rigid approval structures, and low psychological safety have become strategic liabilities. Drawing on global pharmaceutical practices and Indian industry realities, it makes the case for redefining decision rights, empowering Gen X with lifecycle ownership, and repositioning veterans as strategic mentors rather than operational gatekeepers. The intent is not generational advocacy, but to stimulate policy-level change that restores speed, accountability, and competitiveness to Indian pharmaceutical marketing.
The Paradox Indian Pharma Created for Itself:
Indian pharmaceutical marketing today operates under a contradiction. While markets have become faster, noisier, and more competitive, decision-making authority generally remains slower, heavier, and more centralized. Product life cycles are shrinking, therapy classes are crowded, and prescribers are increasingly sceptical – yet marketing decisions still move through layers designed for a different era.
Caught in the middle is Gen X – neither protected by legacy authority nor limited to junior execution.
Thus, Gen X is not lacking capability in Indian pharma marketing; it is lacking permission.
This is not a people problem. It is an organizational design failure.
When Experience Becomes a Strategic Brake:
For decades, Indian pharma succeeded because experience mattered. Branded generics rewarded consistency, repetition, and field-force discipline. Senior judgment reduced risk.
But the environment has changed.
Globally, pharmaceutical competition has shifted from:
- Volume to velocity
- Promotion to precision
- Annual brand plans to continuous lifecycle orchestration
In this context, experience that slows decisions is no longer a safeguard – it is a liability.
Global pharmaceutical leaders now treat marketing as a lifecycle governance function, not a downstream promotional activity. Marketing strategy influences indication sequencing, launch timing, channel mix, and post-launch defence.
This is where Gen X should be indispensable.
Why Gen X Is Structurally Best Suited for Modern Pharma Marketing:
Gen X pharma marketers occupy a unique strategic position. They have:
- Managed multiple launches and mature brands
- Lived through regulatory tightening and compliance escalation
- Transitioned from field-centric to omnichannel engagement
- Learned to integrate data analytics with physician insight
As reported, in companies such as Pfizer and Novartis, Gen X leaders routinely shape:
- Early market narratives
- Indication prioritization
- Launch sequencing
- Post-launch optimization and brand defence
Marketing is embedded into development and lifecycle decision-making, not consulted after the fact.
In much of Indian pharma, however, Gen X remains execution-heavy and authority-light.
The Uncomfortable Question: Are Veterans Over-Managing the “How”?
A necessary but uncomfortable question must be asked:
Has Indian pharma institutionalized over-management in the name of mentorship?
In many organizations:
- Brand strategies are inherited, not debated
- Messaging frameworks are pre-approved templates
- Deviation from precedent is equated with irresponsibility
Veteran leaders add immense value – but judgment adds value only when it enables thinking, not when it replaces it.
Thus, I reckon: Experience adds value only when it enables judgment – when it replaces thinking, it becomes a strategic brake.
Indian pharma still favors instruction over inquiry.
Indian Reality: Pockets of Progress – Not a System:
Some Indian companies are evolving – unevenly.
Sun Pharma, particularly in specialty and complex therapies, has reportedly moved toward:
- Greater brand ownership at business-unit level
- Faster strategic recalibration
- Reduced micromanagement in select portfolios
But these are exceptions, not institutional norms.
Across much of the industry, Gen X marketers are still measured primarily on sales outcomes, while being denied influence over:
- Launch timing
- Market shaping
- Competitive response architecture
Accountability without authority remains the dominant design.
What Must Change: Structure Before Culture:
If Indian pharma expects Gen X to deliver speed, quality, and competitive edge, change must be structural, not motivational.
1. Redefine Marketing Decision Rights
Marketing must co-own:
- Launch sequencing
- Indication focus
- Lifecycle extension strategies
2. Replace Launch Committees with Lifecycle Councils
Committees reward caution. Lifecycle councils reward speed to insight and rapid iteration.
3. Separate Compliance from Creativity
Compliance should define boundaries—not become a veto point for every decision.
4. Measure Strategic Impact, Not Just Sales
Evaluate Gen X marketers on:
- Market penetration velocity
- Brand resilience
- Competitive defence effectiveness
Sales numbers are lag indicators.
The Missing Enabler: Psychological Safety:
Perhaps the most under-discussed constraint in Indian pharma marketing is psychological safety.
In many organizations:
- Failed ideas outlive successful ones
- Questioning senior views is discouraged
- Playing safe becomes the dominant career strategy
As I have seen: In many Indian pharma companies, the safest marketing strategy is not the smartest one – it is the least visible one.
Why This Is a Policy Issue – Not a Generational Debate:
This is not about Gen X versus Gen Z. Gen Z will eventually redefine execution.
But today’s competitiveness depends on how effectively Gen X is trusted with strategic ownership.
India’s ambition to move:
- From volume to value
- From generics to differentiated and novel therapies
- From local brands to global credibility which cannot be realized with permission-driven marketing leadership.
Let me underscore: This is not a generational argument. It is a competitiveness argument.
Conclusion:
From Control to Trust – Before the Market Decides
Indian pharma does not lack experience. It suffers from over-reliance on it.
The choice is clear:
- Trust Gen X with authority and accountability
- Or preserve comfort at the cost of speed, relevance, and growth
In a market where the fastest learner wins, excessive caution disguised as wisdom is the most dangerous strategy of all.
Author’s Intent: This article is written to stimulate a leadership rethink in Indian pharmaceutical marketing – shifting the conversation from control to trust, and from inherited experience to earned competitive advantage.
— By: Tapan J. Ray
Author, commentator, and observer of life beyond the corporate corridors
Sources and References:
- McKinsey & Company
– Pharma launch excellence, lifecycle management, decision velocity, organizational agility - Boston Consulting Group (BCG)
– Pharma go-to-market transformation, omnichannel marketing, decentralized decision rights - Deloitte Life Sciences & Healthcare
– End-to-end product lifecycle strategy, RWE integration, digital marketing maturity - Harvard Business Review (HBR)
– Psychological safety, leadership trust, intelligent failure, innovation governance - IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science
– Global pharma trends on brand sustainability, post-launch optimization, competitive dynamics - Annual reports and investor presentations
– Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca (public disclosures on lifecycle strategy and marketing models) - Indian pharmaceutical industry analyses
– Public commentary and business reporting on Sun Pharma and Indian specialty pharma evolution