Hypothesis: it is easier to hire all-star employees in bio than in tech
1- No FAANG golden handcuffs.
The Pharmas pretty ubiquitously suck to work at, the HQs lack the bells and whistles of tech, and pay for junior people is easily matched by a startup
1- No FAANG golden handcuffs.
The Pharmas pretty ubiquitously suck to work at, the HQs lack the bells and whistles of tech, and pay for junior people is easily matched by a startup
2- Less founder culture in bio.
Bad for creating new bio co's, but great for hiring. Scientists are much more likely to look for a job than try to start a company
Bad for creating new bio co's, but great for hiring. Scientists are much more likely to look for a job than try to start a company
3- Less competition.
The activation energy to start a bio co is higher than tech, so fewer make it out of the gate. [does anyone have #s on this? this is an educated guess]
You can't do much in (traditional) bio without at least $100K
Less co's = less competition for talent
The activation energy to start a bio co is higher than tech, so fewer make it out of the gate. [does anyone have #s on this? this is an educated guess]
You can't do much in (traditional) bio without at least $100K
Less co's = less competition for talent
4 - Very specific mission motivation.
Some scientists spend 10+ years specializing in an area of bio. If you are also building in that area, the match is evident
(this has been a huge lever for us)
This is AFAIK less common in tech
Some scientists spend 10+ years specializing in an area of bio. If you are also building in that area, the match is evident
(this has been a huge lever for us)
This is AFAIK less common in tech
Bio founders, employees - do you agree/disagree/have variables to add? cc @kamens @ntilmans
thanks @danielgross for the inspo w/ your founder hiring article dcgross.com/the-human-perf…
thanks @danielgross for the inspo w/ your founder hiring article dcgross.com/the-human-perf…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
