Two recruiting experts discuss the main areas where biopharma employers and candidates don’t match up, from how the hiring process runs to what companies can truly pay new employees.
The application and interview process can be daunting for all when job candidates and hiring companies aren’t on the same page. Biopharma professionals can feel frustrated and even disillusioned, while businesses can find it takes longer than expected to fill key roles.
To learn about the disconnects that occur between candidates and companies, BioSpace spoke to two recruiting experts: Laura Helmick, founder and managing partner of life sciences recruiting firm LHB Clinical, and Steve Swan, CEO of executive recruiting firm The Swan Group.
1. Small biotechs don’t always align internally on hiring
Small biotechs without an HR or talent acquisition function often don’t internally align on hiring needs or how the hiring process will work before posting jobs, according to Helmick.
“That causes a lot of frustration for the companies—the hiring managers that are busy with deadlines and other things, that don’t love interviewing candidates—and then it causes a huge disconnect for candidates because they don’t understand what the process is going to be, what the next steps are, what the timelines could be like up-front,” Helmick told BioSpace.
She said that due to the lack of internal alignment, she’s seen chief medical officers who should focus on moving programs forward reviewing applicants, and board members deciding to interview candidates late in the process. Another issue Helmick noted is that candidates may experience delays in hearing back from prospective employers.
“They might go through an interview and not get feedback for a week or two, and it’s because the company hasn’t set up a debrief to talk about how did the interview go with this candidate? What are we going to do moving forward?” she said. “Because there’s such a disconnect and no clear process, then the candidates start getting concerned.”
They may even think the company isn’t as excited about them as they are about the company, Helmick added. She also noted that the really good candidates might be interviewing at other companies, and those that are more organized could hire them faster.
“So, the delays can really cost time and money for these small biotechs if they just don’t take the time initially to get aligned and communicate as transparently as possible with those candidates,” Helmick said.
2. Companies may not truly know candidates
Biopharmas don’t always have a true picture of candidates because of the role artificial intelligence (AI) plays in the hiring process, according to Swan. He explained to BioSpace that companies may have AI write job descriptions, then candidates could have AI rewrite their resumes to align with those descriptions and companies may have AI screen those resumes to identify interview candidates.
“So, AI’s kind of checking its own homework, right?” Swan said.
Compounding the situation, he noted, is that AI may interview candidates.
“And then I get calls from hiring managers, and they say, ‘Well, these people can’t talk about what’s on their resumes,’” Swan said. “And so, what ends up happening at that point is if you go all the way back to the beginning, the identification process is completely muddied, meaning that they don’t even know if the person has the right skill set. So, the pool of candidates that they start with are flawed to begin with.”
Even if those biopharmas find people to hire, they may just be bringing in “a” person, not “the” person, Swan said.
What may help companies and candidates avoid AI negatively affecting the hiring process, he noted, is if applicants use networking to “leapfrog” the identification process.
“I say find somebody that knows somebody that knows somebody that knows somebody inside that company, and they can present your resume or send your resume and say, ‘Hey, listen, Steve Swan’s real. I worked with him or a friend of mine worked with him. He’s a good worker. He shows up on time. He’s a real person.’ That’s all they need to hear.”
3. Candidates don’t always know if small biotechs are stable
While candidates can research small biotechs, they can’t necessarily determine if those companies are stable without the businesses being more up-front about the good and the bad, including challenges they face, according to Helmick.
“Sometimes, companies will withhold information and hope candidates may not necessarily pick up on it, but then that ends up being a situation where a candidate might join the company and immediately know it’s not a good fit or within a year leave, which is not good for anyone,” she said.
Unemployed candidates may hesitate to ask about factors such as cash runway and growth potential, but it’s important to do that, Helmick noted. She also recommended posing specific questions about project deadlines, the hiring managers’ approach and company culture. Regarding that last topic, Helmick noted that cultural fit matters a lot to many small biotechs, so when candidates ask about culture, it demonstrates that fit matters to them as well.
As to the employers’ perspective, Helmick highlighted how being up-front and direct about their situation, even if there are concerns there, can result in candidates choosing to move forward in the interview process. Many, she said, will say, “You know what, I love the science, I love the mission and I’m excited about this. I’m willing to take the risk.”
“But if they feel like a surprise got dropped on them after they joined, that’s not ideal,” Helmick said.
4. Candidates may not know the true salary range
Candidates may not know exactly how much employers can pay them because biopharmas may post salary ranges wider than their budgeted salary bands, according to Swan. For example, he said, a stated range could be $175,000 to $300,000, but the employer doesn’t intend to top $225,000.
If a company tells Swan it won’t go over a set amount, and the candidate wants more because the posted range goes higher, he won’t present that person to the business.
“I don’t want to waste my time, their time or the candidate’s time,” he said.
When companies and candidates don’t align on salaries, employers can miss out on great hires, and candidates can miss out on great opportunities, Swan noted. To avoid that situation, he said it’s best if expectations are set and understood early on.
“I’ve spoken to even internal recruiters that’ll say, ‘Well, present the candidate, maybe things will flex,’ and the company thinks the candidate’s going to flex on salary. The candidate thinks the company’s going to flex on salary,” Swan said. But money is money, he added, and both parties have a budget to follow.
While Swan acknowledged that candidates may not want to discuss salary early in the interview process because they think they’re painting themselves into a corner, he said he doesn’t believe they’re doing that. He also noted a benefit in having that conversation. In situations where base pay can’t change, companies may be able to adjust other parts of the compensation or benefits packages, such as equity, vacation time or remote work.
