Biotech and Pharma are completely missing the mark on hiring scientists. Here are 3 incorrect beliefs that prevent companies from hiring the right people, retaining them, and thriving. ๐๐ป๐ฐ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐ณ ๐ญ โBelief: Academic experience doesn't translate to industry โ Reality: Yes it does. Do you know why academics sometimes fail in industry? It's because the company doesn't train them. Expectations aren't clear, communication standards are not clear, and there is virtually no training on how to use existing SaaS infrastructure. Solution: Put serious thought into training programs, build that infrastructure, and hire people based on their aptitude and coachability, not what they already know. Then train them. ๐๐ป๐ฐ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐ณ ๐ฎ โBelief: Candidates need to meet 95-100% of job requirements to get hired โ Reality: No they don't. In fact, sometimes it's better to hire someone that doesn't "know everything" because they don't come in with preconceived notions about "the right way" to do things. Solution: Put serious thought into training programs, build that infrastructure, and hire people based on their aptitude and coachability, not what they already know. Then train them. ๐๐ป๐ฐ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐ณ ๐ฏ โBelief: Small biotech doesn't have time to train people. โ Reality: Yes they do. What they don't have time for is to cut corners and end up with unproductive employees who don't know what their objectives are and have no idea how to get to "mission accomplished." Solution: Put serious thought into training programs, build that infrastructure, and hire people based on their aptitude and coachability, not what they already know. Then train them. ---------- See the pattern? It's worth repeating in bold. ๐ฃ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ผ๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐ด๐ต๐ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ผ ๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ด๐ฟ๐ฎ๐บ๐, ๐ฏ๐๐ถ๐น๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ถ๐ป๐ณ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฐ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฒ, ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ต๐ถ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ผ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ถ๐ฟ ๐ฎ๐ฝ๐๐ถ๐๐๐ฑ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐๐, ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐น๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ ๐ธ๐ป๐ผ๐. ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ๐ป ๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐บ. Before someone says the obvious and tells me that I've never been a biotech CEO and that I don't know what I'm talking about, let me share with you a quote from Ben Horowitz, one of the most respected CEOs and VCs of the last 2 decades: "The biggest obstacle to putting a training program in place is the perception that it will take too much time...there is no investment that you can make that will do more to improve productivity in your company [than training your people]. Therefore, being too busy to train is the moral equivalent of being too hungry to eat." Let that sink in. If you're a biotech or pharma company that understands the value of aptitude and coachability, I have a pipeline of scientists that will blow you away. Introductions cost 1 unit of open mindedness.ย You know where to find me. #biotechjobs, #biotech, #scientist ย
THIS. I've also noticed a strange double-edged sword of "PhDs" being "Overqualified" when most of us simply want a better quality of life, and not more responsibility, or 6 figures. So that, paired with our PhD just being "school" and not "work experience," sets up these weird impossible double standards. I know in most PhDs you are your own supervisor, a manager, a mentor, and a professor, all at the same time you are a bench scientist! It's actually 4 jobs in one, for 1/2 the pay of an entry-level industry bench scientist. So why would hiring managers just assume a PhD applicant is both over- and under- qualified, or that they wouldn't go above-and-beyond for even just a decent salary? So strange.
The question around training is fascinating. The tech start-up era was fueled by kids who taught themselves how to tinker with electronics and code. Its not realistic to expect kids to teach themselves how to tinker with DNA (let alone infectious diseases). But it is also silly to expect entry level employees to have a PhD and 3 years of industry experience. Companies that can find a way to avoid both credentialism and the "move fast and break things" mentality can have a huge competitive advantage.
Great post. To address your first point about training. The reality is that a lot (the majority?) of PhDs will end up in industry and not academia. So wouldnโt it make sense that academic programs consider this and strengthen some training that addresses industry requirements? For example: 1. reinforcing reproducibility and experimental rigor. 2. rigorous documentation 3. team work and professional behavior 4. Networking 5. Presenting data to an audience of non-experts. There are others and I am sure not everyone agrees with my list.
Ah, finally someone said it. This post should go viral. You need to know some business terms, pipelines, and company culture to sustain in the industry. Training in this area doesn't take much time. For a PhD trained in multiple areas, it's not that difficult. Talented and passionate people are being overlooked because of this. No one can guarantee who will excel in a role, whether a fresh PhD or an experienced industry candidate. Relative hiring should be reconsideredโthere is a better way.
Great post Ali Divan, Ph.D. You are spot on. In order to succeed in any type of work one needs to focus on what is important and in the right procedures and methods to get the job done. If you set up a company that has clear goals and expectations why not implement the methods and procedures that will help you achieve those objectives? By the right training, by writing SOPs and engaging with your employees you will boost your productivity and, most importantly, people will be on the same page and work as a well functioning team. Instead of expecting people to do what you want because you pay them, expect them to work with you toward that vision you have.
I needed to hear this! How does an industry that is built in part on good science done by people with PhD training stigmatize those very people so much? Because unless there are people that come out of the womb with a PhD, at some point they had neither that degree nor industry experience. Graduate school teaches one to learn on-the-go quickly and independently. But I feel like "the industry" has been telling me that because I haven't done science in that setting or I didn't come from a well funded lab with the most modern tech, I'm simply incapable? Make it make sense! You want to build a sustainable and productive company? I would think some training/mentoring would be required.
I totally agree. An academic scientist is an expert learner, we are eager to learn and we are learning rapidly. So give us a little bit of time, a little bit of support and clear objectives and we will be able to contribute quickly.
Companies are really missing out by not capitalizing on the fact that PhDs are professional learners. We have mastered the art of integrating complex concepts quickly and putting them to use. We just need someone to point us in the right direction and give us a little guidance. Learning the material and implementing the skills is the easy part.
I canโt agree more! Somebody has to trust the PhDs with the first non-academic job so they can someday have โ3-5 years of industry experienceโ! ๐
Field Science & Medical Support Specialist | Passionate communicator experienced at melding science education with customer service, sales, and marketing tactics creating best-in class scientific support teams.
2wAgreed. One of the biggest mistakes hiring departments make is looking for a perfect candidate (one who checks all their boxes), which doesn't exist. Having an AI with threshold settings parse CVs and eliminate candidates based on a set of keywords may be a time saver initially but it results in lower quality candidate pool. How often do you see a job posting with 100s of applicants up for 3 months....it goes away, then is reposted. Obviously the current system isn't working optimally. Most PhD level candidates can easily learn the 3 or 4 skills they don't have initially, and check all the boxes after 3 months of employ. The other big one is a lack of a clearly defined on-boarding (training) program which is role/department specific. This sets up new candidates for immediate failure. Department success is directly related to the quality of its training managers. So hiring a bright candidate who fits the company culture and aligns with the mission is the most efficient thing to do because they often will become the "perfect" candidate.