Although there have been significant investments in life sciences companies in the past few years, the ability to realize a return on those investments has faced a singular, major hurdle: slow hiring. Specifically, the industry is in the middle of a talent shortage which, per a recent BCG report, is contributing to “significant bottlenecks and cost drivers.”
However, when we talk to hiring managers at biotech companies, people often assume the opposite is true, that there’s a surplus of available talent. Thinking that they’ll have their pick of people, they start an internal recruiting process.
But far from being smooth sailing, the roles remain open months later. And this wasted time has a cost: missed key trial deadlines, delayed development, and lack of commercial readiness.
On the other hand, if you have an experienced industry talent partner with a proven process rooted in disciplined intake, you can outpace your competitors by getting someone qualified in the seat faster.
Key Takeaways
- The perception of a talent surplus is misleading. A flood of applicants creates the illusion of an easy hire. But once underqualified and ill-fitting candidates are filtered out, the real pool for specialized roles is thin, which is why internal searches routinely stall for months at a time.
- Life sciences hiring is a “niche within a niche.” The narrower the therapeutic area, the smaller the qualified pool. This holds even for roles that seem generic, such as marketing, where deep domain fluency matters more than a broad title suggests.
- A specialized recruiting partner changes the math. Deep sector focus, long-tenured recruiters, and a disciplined intake process let a partner like Compass fill roles in four to six weeks, rather than the months it takes companies going it alone.
Why is There Confusion Over the Current Biotech Hiring Market?
The biggest reason for confusion over the current biotech hiring market is, simply put, that there are a ton of people out there looking for work. But, in our experience, much of that is just noise.
Once you remove the underqualified applicants and the people who may be qualified generally but aren’t a good fit for your specific environment, the pool of applicants ends up being quite thin.
There are a number of reasons why that’s the case. Here are some of the most common.
The “niche within a niche” problem
Life sciences isn’t a monolithic market. It includes pharma, biotech, medical devices, therapeutics, diagnostics, and more. Even within one of those categories, like biotech/biopharma, you end up with vaccines, gene therapy, antigens, cell therapies, and more. And you could go even further, like a cell therapy that’s specifically meant for oncology applications.
Each of these sectors really is a niche within a niche (often within another niche). And the narrower the niche, the smaller the pool of qualified candidates.
While this can be obvious when you’re looking at technical or research roles, it applies for other roles often considered to be “generic.” You may think there’s a pool of 5,000 marketers out there, but when you get someone who truly understands your niche, you end up with something closer to 400 or 500 who are actually worth your time.
Market maturity
For many of these niches, there’s the added layer of market maturity (or, more precisely, the lack of it). Although treatments like cell and gene therapies have been around for a while, their commercial momentum has really only hit critical mass in the last 3-4 years.
And because a small number of products have gone to market (right now), there simply hasn’t been enough time for enough experienced talent to accumulate to create a deep bench of qualified people. Unlike, for instance, established categories that have had 30+ years of talent development.
Ambiguity around transferable skills
Given the relative recency of many of these life sciences fields and niches, the need for transferable skills is virtually a given. Insisting on an exact experience match is going to be nearly impossible.
But that doesn’t mean the solution is to hire a generalist. In fact, the strategy we’ve seen clients implement most effectively is to take calculated risks on who they hire. For example, you could hire someone with oncology experience who may not have a cell therapy background, but could definitely learn.
This results in a wider pool of talent, but one that is still relatively limited. Of course, how big of a risk you’re willing to take will depend on the role in question. A Chief Medical Officer driving a clinical trial will need exact experience, while the Director of Marketing can probably bring a more generalist life sciences background while learning about your specific therapies on the job.
Why Relying on Internal Hiring Only Can Be a Challenge
We’ve found that when companies try to handle life sciences hiring internally, many of these roles can stay open for six to eight months at a time. Often this is because these hiring managers underestimate what actually goes into hiring, how difficult it is to place these roles, and whether they’re adequately resourced enough to do so.
One of the reasons why Compass is able to fill full-time roles in six weeks (and part-time or fractional roles in two weeks) is because we combine deep, embedded experience in this field, as well as a disciplined intake process that screens for the right role:
- Over 80% of the roles we place are in biotech or pharmaceuticals. We’re very focused in this space.
- We have recruiters who have been with us for 10+ years, so we have a deep working knowledge of these positions.
- Because we’ve placed hundreds of life sciences roles, we know the questions to ask that help screen potential candidates quickly.
If you’re thinking you can go to your network and find the perfect fit (or, that the right candidate will just stumble upon you), you should be prepared for a months-long disappointment. Or, you can partner with Compass and we’ll find your role within six weeks, guaranteed.
Want to learn more about what we have to offer? Request a consultation with a life sciences consultant today.
FAQs on Accelerating Life Sciences Hiring
Why do critical life sciences roles stay open for six to eight months?
Most often because hiring managers underestimate what it takes to place a highly specialized role and are not resourced to do it well. The qualified pool is far smaller than the raw applicant count suggests, and without a disciplined process to screen quickly, searches drift. Companies that assume the role will fill in weeks are frequently still searching months later.
Isn’t there a surplus of biotech and biopharma talent right now?
It looks that way because a large number of people are actively looking for work, but much of that volume is noise. Once you remove underqualified applicants and people who are broadly qualified but wrong for your specific environment, the pool that genuinely fits a specialized role is quite thin.
Why is hiring in areas like cell and gene therapy so difficult?
These fields have only reached real commercial momentum in the last three to four years, so there hasn’t been enough time for a deep bench of experienced talent to accumulate; unlike established categories with 30-plus years of talent development.
Should I hold out for an exact experience match or hire for transferable skills?
For most roles, insisting on an exact match is nearly impossible and will keep the seat empty. The more effective approach is a calculated risk, such as hiring someone with oncology experience who can learn cell therapy specifics. How much risk to take depends on the role: a Chief Medical Officer driving a clinical trial needs precise experience, while a Director of Marketing can bring a more general background and learn on the job.
How can a specialized recruiting partner fill a role in four to six weeks?
It comes from focus and process. More than 80% of the roles Compass places are in biotech or pharmaceuticals, its recruiters have 10-plus years of tenure and deep working knowledge of these positions, and having placed hundreds of life sciences roles, the team knows exactly which questions screen candidates quickly. That combination of embedded expertise and disciplined intake is what compresses a months-long search into weeks.