Recruiting in pharma and biotech often feels like navigating a maze — slow, expensive, and filled with dead ends. Even with significant investments in employer branding and talent acquisition, many companies continue to struggle with inefficiencies that impact not only hiring outcomes but also overall business performance.
Bad hires in life sciences don’t just cause frustration — they can derail critical projects, harm team morale, and hinder innovation. So why is hiring in this sector so uniquely challenging, and how can we fix it?
One of the most persistent frustrations lies in misaligned expectations. Hiring managers often search for a “unicorn” — a candidate with the perfect combination of technical expertise, industry experience, and soft skills — only to discover that such profiles are rare or already employed elsewhere.
At the same time, candidates frequently arrive with unrealistic views about the role or career progression. This disconnect leads to lengthy hiring cycles, disappointment on both sides, and, ultimately, the risk of poor-fit hires that don’t stay long enough to deliver real value.
The first step toward fixing this is better communication and calibration. Before the search even begins, hiring teams should define what is truly essential versus what can be developed.
The life sciences sector depends on a highly skilled, niche workforce — whether in R&D, regulatory affairs, or clinical operations. The demand far outweighs supply. As a result, companies often compete for the same small pool of candidates, driving up costs and prolonging vacancies.
Traditional sourcing methods — posting jobs online and waiting for responses — are no longer effective. The best candidates are rarely “actively looking”; they’re already employed and must be approached strategically. Building and nurturing long-term talent pipelines is crucial to staying ahead of competitors.
Most recruitment models in life sciences were designed for a different era. They rely on static CVs and standardised interviews that fail to capture a candidate’s potential, adaptability, or alignment with company culture.
Even worse, these processes are slow. By the time an offer is ready, top candidates have often accepted other roles. The result? Lost opportunities and wasted resources.
To modernise hiring, organisations must move beyond outdated checklists and embrace data-driven assessments, competency-based interviews, and faster decision-making cycles.
Specialised recruiters play an essential role in connecting companies with hard-to-find talent — but only if they truly understand the scientific, cultural, and strategic context of the roles they’re filling.
Too often, recruiters act as intermediaries rather than strategic partners. The most effective ones, however, embed themselves within the business, advising on market trends, salary expectations, and talent availability. They become an extension of the hiring team, not just a supplier.
Fixing hiring in life sciences doesn’t require reinventing the wheel — but it does demand rethinking priorities.
The life sciences sector thrives on innovation, yet its hiring practices often lag behind. To fix this, companies must be flexible, proactive, and open to modern approaches.
For hiring managers, the quick wins are clear:
What’s your experience with hiring in pharma or biotech? Have you discovered strategies that work — or lessons learned the hard way?
Share your thoughts in the comments, take our poll, or suggest a future discussion topic. Together, we can build smarter, faster, and more human-centred hiring in life sciences.
