PharmaLive published a perspective on how AI impacts hiring at White healthcare agencies.
The opinion piece is questionable on a few levels.
First, the authors are HR executives. Sorry, but HR does not make hiring decisions at White healthcare agencies—or any White advertising agencies or firms in Adland. The viewpoints on the topic, therefore, lack credibility, authority, and professional expertise.
Next, the article feels like it was crafted via AI, which sorta makes sense given HR executives are not writers, typically only capable of drafting descriptions of basic benefits and simple policies. Using AI to write about AI, however, is lazy, shameful, and hackneyed.
Of course, the nearly 1000-word exposition on hiring makes no references to DEIBA+ considerations.
Finally, the content is illustrated with an AI-generated image (depicted above) featuring a hand with six fingers. That PharmaLive editors and designers approved the graphic underscores a simple reality: pharmaceutical advertising sucks.
The AI-era interview: What healthcare agencies are really hiring for
By Beth Bogacz and Lexi Abbagnaro, AbelsonTaylor Group
AI has quickly become part of the hiring process on both sides of the table. Candidates are using it to write resumes, polish portfolios, rehearse and answer interview questions, and generate writing samples. Agencies are simultaneously exploring how AI can improve recruiting efficiency, support onboarding, and accelerate workflows across departments.
But as AI becomes more embedded in the hiring experience, it is also exposing something important about healthcare marketing talent: The abilities agencies value most are increasingly the skills AI and automation struggle to replicate.
That tension is especially visible in medical advertising, where the work depends on a combination of strategic thinking, scientific understanding, collaboration, and communication. Candidates may arrive with increasingly refined materials, but polished documents alone do not tell recruiters whether someone can navigate a difficult client conversation, synthesize conflicting feedback, or contribute meaningfully to a brand team operating under pressure.
When every resume looks impressive
The interview itself has become more revealing than ever. Over the last year, we have seen a noticeable shift in how candidates present themselves during the application process. AI tools now make it easy to create resumes and writing samples that appear highly sophisticated, regardless of experience level. In many ways, that is the new baseline. Candidates are encouraged to submit professional, well-organized materials, and most people will use available technology to help accomplish that.
The challenge is determining where AI assistance ends and authentic capability begins. That distinction usually becomes clearer in conversation. In interviews, candidates have to think in real time. They have to explain how they approached a problem, describe why a campaign worked or failed, and demonstrate how they collaborate with others. Those moments reveal far more than a perfectly formatted resume ever could.
The interview as the new litmus test
We have also encountered situations where candidates appeared to be actively relying on AI during interviews themselves. Sometimes the signs are subtle: delayed responses, eyes moving to another screen before answering the question, polished answers that contrast with hesitant or less articulate opening remarks. These inconsistencies in the interview rhythm can disrupt the flow of conversation and make it difficult to assess how the candidate actually thinks.
That does not mean candidates should avoid AI altogether. In fact, many are using it productively, preparing for interviews through mock questions, role-playing scenarios, or refining how they communicate their experience. The issue is not whether candidates use AI. The issue is whether they can function independently without the technology.
Why human judgment still matters
Within healthcare communication agencies specifically, that distinction matters because so much of the work depends on judgment. Teams are constantly balancing scientific accuracy, client expectations, regulatory considerations, and audience needs. There is rarely one perfect answer. People have to navigate ambiguity, make decisions with available information, and communicate clearly across disciplines. Those are deeply human skills.
Emotional intelligence remains one of the clearest differentiators in hiring conversations today. So does curiosity. Candidates who ask thoughtful questions, actively listen, and engage in genuine discussion tend to stand out quickly. Creativity also continues to matter, particularly the ability to challenge assumptions or generate unexpected ideas within highly regulated environments.
AI can accelerate execution. It can summarize information, organize thoughts, and improve efficiency. But it still cannot replicate the instinct behind a strong strategic insight or the interpersonal awareness required to build trust with clients and colleagues.
New expectations for emerging talent
There are changing expectations for junior talent as well. Increasingly, entry-level candidates are expected to arrive with at least baseline familiarity with AI tools and an openness to experimenting with new technologies. In many cases, early career professionals are introducing workflows or tools that more established teams may not yet be using. What matters most is adaptability.
Healthcare marketing has always evolved alongside changes in media, technology, and consumer behavior, but the pace of change is different now. Candidates who thrive tend to be the ones comfortable learning continuously, working across functions, and wearing multiple hats when needed. That is especially true at small and midsize agencies, where collaboration across departments is often essential to how work gets done.
The rise of ‘power skills’
The industry is also placing greater value on what many organizations now call “power skills”: cross-functional thinking, communication, adaptability, and strategic leadership. Those qualities consistently surface in recruiting conversations across levels and disciplines. While leadership expectations naturally increase with seniority, even junior employees are expected to collaborate across teams and contribute beyond defined responsibilities.
At the same time, hiring teams have become more intentional about how they assess authenticity during interviews. Behavioral and situational questions have become more and more important because they help reveal how candidates think, process challenges, approach decisions, and communicate under pressure. It is not the specific answer that matters most but it is how someone arrives there.
AI fluency vs. AI dependence
So far, AI has not fundamentally changed the structure of many hiring exercises within healthcare agencies. Case studies, writing assignments and role-specific exercises were already common practice long before AI became prevalent. What has changed is the conversation surrounding them. In some cases, candidates may even be encouraged to use AI tools as part of the exercise, depending on the role. Familiarity with AI is becoming part of professional fluency. But fluency is not the same as dependence.
The candidates who stand out today are usually the ones who understand how to use AI as an enhancement rather than a substitute. They know how to leverage technology to improve efficiency while still bringing original thinking, strong communication, and independent judgment to the table. That balance is becoming one of the defining hiring questions for healthcare agencies.
The future workforce will almost certainly be more AI-capable than the one before it. The agencies that succeed will not be the ones trying to avoid that reality. They will be the ones that learn how to identify talent capable of combining AI technology with the human skills healthcare marketing still depends on most.
No comments:
Post a Comment