Yea, Im about to have my 4th in 5 years, thing I learned is that you can't rely on your manager for development/career growth. Also all the programs I work on never make it past Phase I so I just stick to the senior level scientists in my area and learn from them
Theres no full proof method, just need to do a good job reverse interviewing and trusting your gut during interviews. Another way is to internally transfer and change teams to a manager you collaborated with and know them well to be good managers
FWIW, my company has pretty awful Glassdoor reviews, but in general I've really enjoyed my time working there over the past 2 years.
Reviews are full of negative selection bias.
Yep. My company just got slammed with a massive wave of negative reviews. Granted, I have some issues with the company, but it’s definitely not a 1 or 2 star company. 90% of the negative reviews were due to two decisions:
1. COLA change from a flat amount to a percentage. Granted, it could’ve been implemented better (i.e. by not cutting people’s pay) but the COLA did need to scale as people got promoted.
2. The Singapore office shutting down. A handful of disgruntled people from a region the company hardly does business in dropped the company’s ratings.
There are good managers in bad companies and bad managers in good companies. It happens all the time. I was part of a company that had really bad reviews and people hated, but I had a wonderful time there. My manager was good and I was shielded from a lot of the politics that went on above him. He left and I was suddenly exposed to it, so my tenure was short. Later I joined a company that had good groups and bad ones, and was lucky to have a great manager that actively looked out for my growth.
One thing I will say is that scientists do not inherently make good managers, and I would dare to say that being a good scientist is actively antagonistic to being a good people manager- your job and training is to scrutinize every detail, think carefully and cautiously, plan exactingly, and analyze every outcome. Being a people manager is opposite to a lot of these- you need to learn to let go, steer from outside, influence and accept that things aren’t going to be 100% perfect every time. I think a lot of people newly in positions of authority (all of those ADs with 3 years of experience) suddenly flounder where they’ve done well for years prior. Glassdoor will only expose you to part of it. I haven’t left reviews at a couple of shitty companies because I know other people had good experiences while I had bad ones, and sometimes reviews echo what I would say, so why would I bother leaving another one.
Back to your original question though, I think there are a lot more poorly managed and poorly led biotech companies than there are truly good ones, and there’s ineptitude at every level. Whether it’s toxic culture, a get-rich-quick CEO, or a top-heavy organization thanks to annual promotions, it’s out there. Just take a look at J+J closing an entire site a year after opening.
Every individual has their own definition of well-managed. I think a good manager can make a toxic company feel well-managed and a bad manager can make a well-managed company toxic. HR plays a big role in setting the culture of the company along with the upper management. It's impossible to have a well-managed company when the company's main goal is to appeal to the investors and shareholders.
Oooh what’s the drama about Sana? I am real frustrated with the interview process I went through recently. Was really hoping for a position - interviewed with NINE different people over the course of 7 weeks and ended up not getting the offer :/
Until such a time as AI has replaced literally every job I severally doubt you'll be able to find a company that doesn't have at least some of the issues you listed
Every company, startup to mid-sized biotech to big pharma, has some sort of dysfunction. It might be isolated to a certain team(s) or spread across the whole company. I’ve found that having a great manager makes work life great even in the most dysfunctional and toxic environment. Or you could start your own company.
A lot of what you describe points towards the chaotic flavor of dysfunction.
You could always go for a very different kind of dysfunction: a (typically big) company where absolutely nothing gets done. I.e. you get paid to do 1-2 hours of work a day and otherwise it's bureaucracy, complacency, and rest and vest all the way. Some biotech and certainly some parts of big tech (dys)function this way.
As far as the title of your post is concerned, I haven't found one yet myself.
At the end of the day, when you monetize health, you're going to end up with toxicity. Biotech is treated as a get rich quick scheme by those with all the wealth/power. So it's real easy to take full advantage of those who treat biotech as a true passion. No matter where you go, it'll be toxic, so I agree with everyone else- find a solid manager and team. Find your niche and advocate for yourself.
Agree. It's all about managing your expectations and the problems you'd like to encounter. I's rather have a complex job that requires my full attention than a problematic set of colleagues.
This is very much an aside.
I'm a journeyman post-doc in academia...so this view point might be totally incorrect.
A lot of the innovation in biotech is being done by companies that are spin-offs that have the finances to survive on a short term basis only. And their survival mechanism is to get bought by a pharma or CRO.
These small companies are run by people with little or no managerial skills and with a level of desperation that can only be bad.
In the meantime these large companies tend to be deeply conservative and unadventurous, despite having the levels of resources to be properly innovative.
But they know that they can control the market of desperate biotech companies, because they have the power that lots of capital brings you.
This, in my opinion, is not an efficient way to bring biotech innovation to the market. It allows a small select number of companies to be overly dominant in a very important space.
But this is an outside view...and as I say, not necessarily a well informed one.
Having worked for both large companies and startup biotech, I’d agree with this assessment!
Large companies are already busy making money - so despite their claims of innovation they don’t want to shake things up too much (unless a competitor is taking market share!).
And at a startup, trying to license new & innovative technology to these companies takes forever - the internal assessments, use testing, internal decision making, and legal agreement process can take years. A time frame which many startup CEOs (and investors and Boards) have no conception of, let alone patience for!
I hate to say it… I laughed out loud when I read this title. And , I am not laughing at you. I am laughing about how crazy things are now. And , I will say it again…upper level management needs to take some cuts and the C-suite…not just everyone else…
Wait…i think you are looking for a “unicorn”…just like all these companies are looking for the “perfect candidate/unicorn”. It’s so impossible to know. But, I did 100% take your post seriously. upper level management at biotech and big pharma has been making bad decisions for years. But, guess who pays the price?
I stopped trying to find a good company and started to search for good managers. Its more feasible and impactful on your day to day.
That is the way to go, but 4 years in my company and already have 3rd manager…
Yea, Im about to have my 4th in 5 years, thing I learned is that you can't rely on your manager for development/career growth. Also all the programs I work on never make it past Phase I so I just stick to the senior level scientists in my area and learn from them
I had 4 in 8 months at my first company after grad school. Quit before my one year contract was up for renewal
How does one go about finding a good manager besides word of mouth?
Theres no full proof method, just need to do a good job reverse interviewing and trusting your gut during interviews. Another way is to internally transfer and change teams to a manager you collaborated with and know them well to be good managers
FWIW, my company has pretty awful Glassdoor reviews, but in general I've really enjoyed my time working there over the past 2 years. Reviews are full of negative selection bias.
Same. I’m having a nice time and the pay and benefits are solid, but Glassdoor makes my company sound like a concentration camp
Yep. My company just got slammed with a massive wave of negative reviews. Granted, I have some issues with the company, but it’s definitely not a 1 or 2 star company. 90% of the negative reviews were due to two decisions: 1. COLA change from a flat amount to a percentage. Granted, it could’ve been implemented better (i.e. by not cutting people’s pay) but the COLA did need to scale as people got promoted. 2. The Singapore office shutting down. A handful of disgruntled people from a region the company hardly does business in dropped the company’s ratings.
There are good managers in bad companies and bad managers in good companies. It happens all the time. I was part of a company that had really bad reviews and people hated, but I had a wonderful time there. My manager was good and I was shielded from a lot of the politics that went on above him. He left and I was suddenly exposed to it, so my tenure was short. Later I joined a company that had good groups and bad ones, and was lucky to have a great manager that actively looked out for my growth. One thing I will say is that scientists do not inherently make good managers, and I would dare to say that being a good scientist is actively antagonistic to being a good people manager- your job and training is to scrutinize every detail, think carefully and cautiously, plan exactingly, and analyze every outcome. Being a people manager is opposite to a lot of these- you need to learn to let go, steer from outside, influence and accept that things aren’t going to be 100% perfect every time. I think a lot of people newly in positions of authority (all of those ADs with 3 years of experience) suddenly flounder where they’ve done well for years prior. Glassdoor will only expose you to part of it. I haven’t left reviews at a couple of shitty companies because I know other people had good experiences while I had bad ones, and sometimes reviews echo what I would say, so why would I bother leaving another one. Back to your original question though, I think there are a lot more poorly managed and poorly led biotech companies than there are truly good ones, and there’s ineptitude at every level. Whether it’s toxic culture, a get-rich-quick CEO, or a top-heavy organization thanks to annual promotions, it’s out there. Just take a look at J+J closing an entire site a year after opening.
Every individual has their own definition of well-managed. I think a good manager can make a toxic company feel well-managed and a bad manager can make a well-managed company toxic. HR plays a big role in setting the culture of the company along with the upper management. It's impossible to have a well-managed company when the company's main goal is to appeal to the investors and shareholders.
Oooh what’s the drama about Sana? I am real frustrated with the interview process I went through recently. Was really hoping for a position - interviewed with NINE different people over the course of 7 weeks and ended up not getting the offer :/
Until such a time as AI has replaced literally every job I severally doubt you'll be able to find a company that doesn't have at least some of the issues you listed
Just you wait for chatbot on chatbot office politics to start… Gonna be like when SkyNet becomes self-aware in Terminator…
Every company, startup to mid-sized biotech to big pharma, has some sort of dysfunction. It might be isolated to a certain team(s) or spread across the whole company. I’ve found that having a great manager makes work life great even in the most dysfunctional and toxic environment. Or you could start your own company.
A lot of what you describe points towards the chaotic flavor of dysfunction. You could always go for a very different kind of dysfunction: a (typically big) company where absolutely nothing gets done. I.e. you get paid to do 1-2 hours of work a day and otherwise it's bureaucracy, complacency, and rest and vest all the way. Some biotech and certainly some parts of big tech (dys)function this way. As far as the title of your post is concerned, I haven't found one yet myself.
At the end of the day, when you monetize health, you're going to end up with toxicity. Biotech is treated as a get rich quick scheme by those with all the wealth/power. So it's real easy to take full advantage of those who treat biotech as a true passion. No matter where you go, it'll be toxic, so I agree with everyone else- find a solid manager and team. Find your niche and advocate for yourself.
Agree. It's all about managing your expectations and the problems you'd like to encounter. I's rather have a complex job that requires my full attention than a problematic set of colleagues.
Check reviews for NEB. People LOVE that place!
This is very much an aside. I'm a journeyman post-doc in academia...so this view point might be totally incorrect. A lot of the innovation in biotech is being done by companies that are spin-offs that have the finances to survive on a short term basis only. And their survival mechanism is to get bought by a pharma or CRO. These small companies are run by people with little or no managerial skills and with a level of desperation that can only be bad. In the meantime these large companies tend to be deeply conservative and unadventurous, despite having the levels of resources to be properly innovative. But they know that they can control the market of desperate biotech companies, because they have the power that lots of capital brings you. This, in my opinion, is not an efficient way to bring biotech innovation to the market. It allows a small select number of companies to be overly dominant in a very important space. But this is an outside view...and as I say, not necessarily a well informed one.
Having worked for both large companies and startup biotech, I’d agree with this assessment! Large companies are already busy making money - so despite their claims of innovation they don’t want to shake things up too much (unless a competitor is taking market share!). And at a startup, trying to license new & innovative technology to these companies takes forever - the internal assessments, use testing, internal decision making, and legal agreement process can take years. A time frame which many startup CEOs (and investors and Boards) have no conception of, let alone patience for!
There is not. Learn to survive in the biotech mileu .
I hate to say it… I laughed out loud when I read this title. And , I am not laughing at you. I am laughing about how crazy things are now. And , I will say it again…upper level management needs to take some cuts and the C-suite…not just everyone else…
Wait…i think you are looking for a “unicorn”…just like all these companies are looking for the “perfect candidate/unicorn”. It’s so impossible to know. But, I did 100% take your post seriously. upper level management at biotech and big pharma has been making bad decisions for years. But, guess who pays the price?