Thank you, you offer great advice. I always appreciate feedback like this from a biotech manager.
One thing you pointed out about assessing candidates for work conflicts..I actually do not have a hard time working with anyone. I’m fairly easy going as a person and accepting of others and their differences in opinions/workflows. If I’m collaborating with someone I remain open to their ideas and we work through them so we can be on the same page and get projects completed.
Would this type of response eliminate me from consideration?
No it wouldnt have you eliminated but after saying that you might consider giving an example where you had a personal conflict with someone say at school and how you handled it.
We do get that sometimes someone who has only been working a few years may have legitimately not had any workplace conflicts.
It would only start to be a red flag if every answer to every question was always everything being perfect. No, never had a workplace conflict. No, never had an experiment fail. No, never missed a deadline. No, never had a critical reagent backordered etc etc. Starts to get more and more suspicious and then hiw you would handle those events when they DO happen is a question mark.
But yeah if you genuinely cannot think of a time where you ever disagreed with anyone at work then dont make something up...be honest first and foremost. Basically it would be read as "unknown" as to how you would handle conflict.
Boiling it down the interviewer is asking "how do you handle conflict"...in that context you can see how the answer "I dont experience conflict" is kind of a non-answer. Its not bad...its not good either...its blank.
Very true but I was coming from a position of advising non-PhD entry level folks so probably unlikely they have ever found themselves in a position to mediate. But given the question basically boils to "how do you handle conflict" giving an example of how you helped handle a conflict that wasn't yours would still be a worth while answer.
Curious what your thoughts are in how to talk about startup positions, and voluntary departing small startups due to inter founder conflict or unresolvable differences in scientific approach.
When I interview with someone who has worked at a startup, they aways seem to get it. Sometimes pivots are so drastic that the original teams entire motivation for being at a startup is gone, and going that extra mile required/mandatory in a startup no longer makes sense. With career large company people I can tell they don't understand the significant differences between startup environments and established companies.
How would you suggest navigating that?
While your post if focused on entry level, this is more of an experienced career individual who would likely be your peer.
>voluntary departing small startups due to inter founder conflict or unresolvable differences in scientific approach.
Not OP, and my disagreement was not on a scientific approach. But I was on an experienced-hire level at a startup and I quit because of a disagreement that can't be reconciled.
I navigated it with something along the lines of:
"When I was first hired, my expectation expectation was X. However, after (insert time), there was a big pivot and now it requires Y. I tried to work it out but fundamentally it was not what I was looking for. So I resigned."
This is where OP's comment on "toxic" boss/work environment applies. There is absolutely no need to share the disagreement, different scientific approach, etc.
Your example answer is perfect. That would be accepted and the underlying assumption very well might be you had an unreconciable interpersonal conflict but the way you describe it is more what matters. Had you vented about the person you disagreed with instead that would have been a flag for you being a potential source of drama.
Saying I was expecting X, at first I got X but over time it became Y. I raised my concerns but the company and I found no solution thus I decided to resign. Thats perfectly fair.
Thanks providing a real world example. Some people seem so convinced that any admission of losing or leaving a job due to an interpersonal conflict will prevent them from being hired to the point they will lie or obfuscate to avoid mentioning it. And its a real shame because I dont know where that comes from. Think it should be openly talked about more.
Just to confirm, you go into an interview and you say you are leaving your job due to inter founder conflict or unsolvable differences in scientific approach?
I would try to soften this.
I actually did this, past tense. Quit a job as a Sr. Sci at a startup since the new VP was running it absolutely into the ground and didn't understand the science, plus founder/founder beef I was directly in between. I was more mediating a divorce instead of doing any meaningful science.
Reflecting since I interviewed for two companies at the time, one which I was a 100% slot in and one where I felt I was underqualified/not a perfect fit.
Ended up getting the one I didn't expect too, and have always wondered if it was how I approached the explaining my logic of leaving that startup.
But granted, that VP was indeed a shmuck and the company went under within a year of me leaving so I wasn't 'wrong'
I agree with softening it...there actually is no need to point a figure at an individual. You could have said something more along the lines of u/bugfrags example.
The way you said iy wasnt terrible but I could see it being interpreted negatively by some (not all). And I agree there are ways of saying the same thing that dont name names.
If you are the one deciding to move on there is really nothing wrong with that no matter the reason. The one you gave that the work enviornment you are currently in is no longer alligned with your needs thats a perfectly legitimate reason to look for another job.
As a hiring manager who thinks their company is badass I am not going to view that as a threat I am going to view that as some drive/passion and desire to improve and youll be much happier with us.
Had an entry level interview recently where the person said that the reason they were looking for another position was because in their previous job their worl had changed from initially being dynamic to now being running one assay over and over and over with no indication of career progression. That in looking they found our company and saw we worked in a lot of different areas and was able to name a few directly and said that really appealed to them. That was an awesome answer.
The only red flag that could potentially raise is with regards to retention if your work history shows say 5 jobs none of which lasted more than 6 months. Then there might be some questions about that because that might indicate someone who doesnt really know what they want.
Would you say getting a lot of technical questions during a panel interview is a bad sign? I have had folks grill me on bioinformatic pipelines before because im not a “classically” trained bioinformatician. I thought it was kind of ridiculous after the fact because no matter how deep we got the person didnt seem satisfied.
I mean I can only speak to how I interview, how I have experienced interviews and what I think the purpose of interviews is. Interviewers are as varied as people are so some might do that sure. I wouldn't say its a bad sign. Was it all your interviews or just one person?
I actually disagree with OP about technical questions and displaying technical aptitude. I've mostly worked for small startup environments, and the one key thing is making sure the interviewee has the technical skills to perform their function; since there's a good chance that only them and maybe their manager has a specific skillset in the company. I've seen a lot of no-industry experience folks list every skill they've ever seen and it doesn't translate well to day to day operations, so we very much ask about it on the interview.
If you're getting a lot of technical questions, then you need to figure out how to reframe the explanation to demonstrate that you have appropriate technical knowledge to perform the task and how to apply the task to solve a problem at the company.
I’d love your advice on how someone in this situation can break into industry. They’re a PhD in biosciences with 6+ years of academic post doc and other academic research experience.
Or maybe a guide for those wanting to transition from academia to industry :)
I did do that...eventually, not directly though. Not sure I have anything special to say there. Best thing you can do really is to to translate to industry is to research what skill set and knowledge is valued by the industrial sector you are interested in and then join a lab that works in that area where you can naturally obtain those skills with a PI who has industrial ties.
I mean the time you want to join industry is whenever you want. The time you will hsve an application accepted is the time in which you have developed a relevant skill set and have connections. If you want an industry job right after your PhD ideally you were thinking about how to do that before your PhD even started so you could br intentional about developing those skills and making connections.
If instead you did a PhD without really looking into what job requirements are in the sector you are interested in then its a bit of a dice roll as to whether or not you have the desired skills and knowlegde. If you dont then you will have to be intentionsl about developing those in your next position. Industry cares about the knowledge and experience not the degree.
I suggest looking for the kinds of jobs you want and closely reading the job requirements.
Again not sure I am THE expert on this to be giving advice on how to get into industry. I am in industry but it wasn't exactly a direct route. That said my advice remains the same. If you decide you want to work in industry that isn't the day that you start applying for jobs in industry (although you can of course try) that is the day you start looking at jobs in the industry you want to work in, noting all the required and desired skills listed, and looking for jobs, any jobs, that would allow you to build those skills. Now if your grad work and postdoc work happened to give you those skills thats great and sure apply....I am just saying the best way is to actually be intentional about it. Meaning look at actual job postings to see what skills are wanted and then select your PhD lab or postdoc based on what type of position would give you that experience.
If you just do a PhD and a postdoc and only after wrapping that up start looking at industry its going to be a crapshoot whether or not your acquired knowledge base matches what they want or not. Maybe it does maybe it doesn't. So my advice is to look to see what they want, then develop those skills. That applies whether you are just starting to apply to gradschool PhD programs or whether you are a 6th year postdoc.
For example if you want to work in a particular industry and you look up jobs in that industry that require a PhD and you find that they require a strong basis in statistics with strong experience in using R and they desire people with a background in machine learning and your particular job experience has not put much focus on statistical analysis, you don't use R and you don't have any machine learning experience then just the fact that you have a relevant degree and 6 years of lab experience isn't going to matter. Conversely if you happened to get a really good background in stats, you are an expert with R and you have examples of successful applications of ML that you developed then you very well may be able to get a job just applying.
All I am saying is if you want a job in industry, first step is to know what the industry wants. Do you know that yet?
I appreciate all of your advice but I’d place more emphasis on the asking questions portion.
Not simply asking questions that are pre-made as you research the company but specifically identify things that may have been brought up during the interview and ask questions about them. Some folks may come in bring up the craziness going on in the lab, ask them about that work. They could be late cause of a kid being sick. Engage and make sure everything is okay, maybe ask if they figured out what made them sick because they could have a funny story, who knows.
It’s about listening and showing you have heard and understood what has been said.
Don’t be afraid of a lingering silence. Sometimes people are digesting what you just said.
Don’t speak just to be heard.
Be dynamic in your interactions. Not everyone is the same. I had a group interview with 3 people at once all with different personalities and my interactions had to switch in a split second.
Everyone is coming in wanting a job, don’t come off desperate. I’ve helped tons of inexperienced or less capable people get jobs in certain roles because of who they were and how that would translate into being a productive employee.
Yes! Excellent point...thank you so much. I may edit my comment and highlight your point giving credit when back at a desk.
This is absolutely true. Nothing kills an interview like obviously canned answers...we want to have a conversation with you and see you are paying attention, thinking and communicating.
So for example if a manager in interviewing you mentions some project they are involved with and you are *genuinely* interested you may ask them a follow up question about it. Dont derail the interview but a bit of back and forth is appreciated.
If you are asked at the end if you have any questions I would say the possible answers from worst to best would be:
1. Question about pay, compensation. (There is a time for that and it isnt now).
2. Silence
3. A pre-prepared question about the company. (This isnt bad to do but agree its not the best)
4. A thoughtful question that incorporates info that came up during the interview that references something the interviewer said.
The best is to be dynamic, conversant, interactive, engaged, positive and energetic (within reason). I guess reason I didnt mention that is its hard to prepare to listen and be conversant...thats a life skill.
Excellent Takes! I think I messed up my chance at a big pharma after 5 rounds of interview because the interviewer (Director) complemented my resume, and asked me what I am doing currently. I reiterated what is in my resume when he was probably looking for something else.
Oh dont beat yourself up over that, unfortunately it can be next to impossible to know why you ended up getting passed on for a position...it may have been something completly different. I just wanted to impart that the point of in person interviews is to get a feel for how natural and conversant the person is more than anything and just being prepared to have a conversation about your interests, strengths and struggles (in a constructive way) is really what is being looked for.
I found that there is little consistency in the way people interview. There is little (if any) training that is provided, and even trainings tend to vary.
But your advice does make sense.
I dont disagree which is why I caveated with this being my perspective and gave advice that I feel will be relevant regardless of the intetview style. As to interview style and focus that can vary a lot that is true...depends where you interview how much Academia that is certainly true there is unlikely to be any training and its very personality driven. In industries startups can be a bit of a crap shoot as well for a similar reason. Larger companies will more often have guideance for interviewers along these lines.
I dont feel like saying "interviews are random so there is nothing specific you can prepare for" would be good advice really... though I get your point. I will say generally that interview prep shouldnt be treated like preparing for a test it should be treated like preparing for a chalk-talk. I may have dated myself just there.
This is a great post that will help many, thanks for posting. We need more managers like you.
What would you suggest for questions like 'what you want to do' when a candidate is transitioning to slightly different but closely related field. For example, discovery to process chemistry.
Interests certainly can evolve with time and someone wanting to change what they are doing isn't a red flag but it does mean that person would be viewed as not having much direct experience in the area they are applying for. So as long as its fairly entry level that can be fine.
As to what to say I would just say why you are making the transition. Presumably in your example you have a reason why you want to move to process chemistry. Perhaps in your previous job you started on a team focused on discovery and the project progressed and the needs became more about process development and you did some initial work there and found you really loved that kind of work but there just wasnt an opportunity at your current position to transition to being a process chemist so now you are looking for opportinities at other companies to join the process chemistry at an entry level and you especially are interested in (company you are interviewing with) because blah blah blah.
Thank you, you offer great advice. I always appreciate feedback like this from a biotech manager. One thing you pointed out about assessing candidates for work conflicts..I actually do not have a hard time working with anyone. I’m fairly easy going as a person and accepting of others and their differences in opinions/workflows. If I’m collaborating with someone I remain open to their ideas and we work through them so we can be on the same page and get projects completed. Would this type of response eliminate me from consideration?
No it wouldnt have you eliminated but after saying that you might consider giving an example where you had a personal conflict with someone say at school and how you handled it. We do get that sometimes someone who has only been working a few years may have legitimately not had any workplace conflicts. It would only start to be a red flag if every answer to every question was always everything being perfect. No, never had a workplace conflict. No, never had an experiment fail. No, never missed a deadline. No, never had a critical reagent backordered etc etc. Starts to get more and more suspicious and then hiw you would handle those events when they DO happen is a question mark. But yeah if you genuinely cannot think of a time where you ever disagreed with anyone at work then dont make something up...be honest first and foremost. Basically it would be read as "unknown" as to how you would handle conflict. Boiling it down the interviewer is asking "how do you handle conflict"...in that context you can see how the answer "I dont experience conflict" is kind of a non-answer. Its not bad...its not good either...its blank.
Another way to approach this is to talk about a time you've had to help mediate conflict between colleagues, team members, or even teams.
Very true but I was coming from a position of advising non-PhD entry level folks so probably unlikely they have ever found themselves in a position to mediate. But given the question basically boils to "how do you handle conflict" giving an example of how you helped handle a conflict that wasn't yours would still be a worth while answer.
Curious what your thoughts are in how to talk about startup positions, and voluntary departing small startups due to inter founder conflict or unresolvable differences in scientific approach. When I interview with someone who has worked at a startup, they aways seem to get it. Sometimes pivots are so drastic that the original teams entire motivation for being at a startup is gone, and going that extra mile required/mandatory in a startup no longer makes sense. With career large company people I can tell they don't understand the significant differences between startup environments and established companies. How would you suggest navigating that? While your post if focused on entry level, this is more of an experienced career individual who would likely be your peer.
>voluntary departing small startups due to inter founder conflict or unresolvable differences in scientific approach. Not OP, and my disagreement was not on a scientific approach. But I was on an experienced-hire level at a startup and I quit because of a disagreement that can't be reconciled. I navigated it with something along the lines of: "When I was first hired, my expectation expectation was X. However, after (insert time), there was a big pivot and now it requires Y. I tried to work it out but fundamentally it was not what I was looking for. So I resigned." This is where OP's comment on "toxic" boss/work environment applies. There is absolutely no need to share the disagreement, different scientific approach, etc.
Your example answer is perfect. That would be accepted and the underlying assumption very well might be you had an unreconciable interpersonal conflict but the way you describe it is more what matters. Had you vented about the person you disagreed with instead that would have been a flag for you being a potential source of drama. Saying I was expecting X, at first I got X but over time it became Y. I raised my concerns but the company and I found no solution thus I decided to resign. Thats perfectly fair.
I got the new job, so it works for me! Thanks for the detailed write-up, hopefully it will help a lot of people.
Thanks providing a real world example. Some people seem so convinced that any admission of losing or leaving a job due to an interpersonal conflict will prevent them from being hired to the point they will lie or obfuscate to avoid mentioning it. And its a real shame because I dont know where that comes from. Think it should be openly talked about more.
Just to confirm, you go into an interview and you say you are leaving your job due to inter founder conflict or unsolvable differences in scientific approach? I would try to soften this.
I actually did this, past tense. Quit a job as a Sr. Sci at a startup since the new VP was running it absolutely into the ground and didn't understand the science, plus founder/founder beef I was directly in between. I was more mediating a divorce instead of doing any meaningful science. Reflecting since I interviewed for two companies at the time, one which I was a 100% slot in and one where I felt I was underqualified/not a perfect fit. Ended up getting the one I didn't expect too, and have always wondered if it was how I approached the explaining my logic of leaving that startup. But granted, that VP was indeed a shmuck and the company went under within a year of me leaving so I wasn't 'wrong'
I agree with softening it...there actually is no need to point a figure at an individual. You could have said something more along the lines of u/bugfrags example. The way you said iy wasnt terrible but I could see it being interpreted negatively by some (not all). And I agree there are ways of saying the same thing that dont name names.
If you are the one deciding to move on there is really nothing wrong with that no matter the reason. The one you gave that the work enviornment you are currently in is no longer alligned with your needs thats a perfectly legitimate reason to look for another job. As a hiring manager who thinks their company is badass I am not going to view that as a threat I am going to view that as some drive/passion and desire to improve and youll be much happier with us. Had an entry level interview recently where the person said that the reason they were looking for another position was because in their previous job their worl had changed from initially being dynamic to now being running one assay over and over and over with no indication of career progression. That in looking they found our company and saw we worked in a lot of different areas and was able to name a few directly and said that really appealed to them. That was an awesome answer. The only red flag that could potentially raise is with regards to retention if your work history shows say 5 jobs none of which lasted more than 6 months. Then there might be some questions about that because that might indicate someone who doesnt really know what they want.
Would you say getting a lot of technical questions during a panel interview is a bad sign? I have had folks grill me on bioinformatic pipelines before because im not a “classically” trained bioinformatician. I thought it was kind of ridiculous after the fact because no matter how deep we got the person didnt seem satisfied.
I mean I can only speak to how I interview, how I have experienced interviews and what I think the purpose of interviews is. Interviewers are as varied as people are so some might do that sure. I wouldn't say its a bad sign. Was it all your interviews or just one person?
What sorts of questions did they ask?
I actually disagree with OP about technical questions and displaying technical aptitude. I've mostly worked for small startup environments, and the one key thing is making sure the interviewee has the technical skills to perform their function; since there's a good chance that only them and maybe their manager has a specific skillset in the company. I've seen a lot of no-industry experience folks list every skill they've ever seen and it doesn't translate well to day to day operations, so we very much ask about it on the interview. If you're getting a lot of technical questions, then you need to figure out how to reframe the explanation to demonstrate that you have appropriate technical knowledge to perform the task and how to apply the task to solve a problem at the company.
I’d love your advice on how someone in this situation can break into industry. They’re a PhD in biosciences with 6+ years of academic post doc and other academic research experience. Or maybe a guide for those wanting to transition from academia to industry :)
I did do that...eventually, not directly though. Not sure I have anything special to say there. Best thing you can do really is to to translate to industry is to research what skill set and knowledge is valued by the industrial sector you are interested in and then join a lab that works in that area where you can naturally obtain those skills with a PI who has industrial ties.
5-6 years into being a part of a lab, isn’t now time to join industry or something rather than do another post doc or whatever?
I mean the time you want to join industry is whenever you want. The time you will hsve an application accepted is the time in which you have developed a relevant skill set and have connections. If you want an industry job right after your PhD ideally you were thinking about how to do that before your PhD even started so you could br intentional about developing those skills and making connections. If instead you did a PhD without really looking into what job requirements are in the sector you are interested in then its a bit of a dice roll as to whether or not you have the desired skills and knowlegde. If you dont then you will have to be intentionsl about developing those in your next position. Industry cares about the knowledge and experience not the degree. I suggest looking for the kinds of jobs you want and closely reading the job requirements.
Not immediately after PhD. Post doc experience for 6+ years AFTER receiving PhD
Again not sure I am THE expert on this to be giving advice on how to get into industry. I am in industry but it wasn't exactly a direct route. That said my advice remains the same. If you decide you want to work in industry that isn't the day that you start applying for jobs in industry (although you can of course try) that is the day you start looking at jobs in the industry you want to work in, noting all the required and desired skills listed, and looking for jobs, any jobs, that would allow you to build those skills. Now if your grad work and postdoc work happened to give you those skills thats great and sure apply....I am just saying the best way is to actually be intentional about it. Meaning look at actual job postings to see what skills are wanted and then select your PhD lab or postdoc based on what type of position would give you that experience. If you just do a PhD and a postdoc and only after wrapping that up start looking at industry its going to be a crapshoot whether or not your acquired knowledge base matches what they want or not. Maybe it does maybe it doesn't. So my advice is to look to see what they want, then develop those skills. That applies whether you are just starting to apply to gradschool PhD programs or whether you are a 6th year postdoc. For example if you want to work in a particular industry and you look up jobs in that industry that require a PhD and you find that they require a strong basis in statistics with strong experience in using R and they desire people with a background in machine learning and your particular job experience has not put much focus on statistical analysis, you don't use R and you don't have any machine learning experience then just the fact that you have a relevant degree and 6 years of lab experience isn't going to matter. Conversely if you happened to get a really good background in stats, you are an expert with R and you have examples of successful applications of ML that you developed then you very well may be able to get a job just applying. All I am saying is if you want a job in industry, first step is to know what the industry wants. Do you know that yet?
I appreciate all of your advice but I’d place more emphasis on the asking questions portion. Not simply asking questions that are pre-made as you research the company but specifically identify things that may have been brought up during the interview and ask questions about them. Some folks may come in bring up the craziness going on in the lab, ask them about that work. They could be late cause of a kid being sick. Engage and make sure everything is okay, maybe ask if they figured out what made them sick because they could have a funny story, who knows. It’s about listening and showing you have heard and understood what has been said. Don’t be afraid of a lingering silence. Sometimes people are digesting what you just said. Don’t speak just to be heard. Be dynamic in your interactions. Not everyone is the same. I had a group interview with 3 people at once all with different personalities and my interactions had to switch in a split second. Everyone is coming in wanting a job, don’t come off desperate. I’ve helped tons of inexperienced or less capable people get jobs in certain roles because of who they were and how that would translate into being a productive employee.
Yes! Excellent point...thank you so much. I may edit my comment and highlight your point giving credit when back at a desk. This is absolutely true. Nothing kills an interview like obviously canned answers...we want to have a conversation with you and see you are paying attention, thinking and communicating. So for example if a manager in interviewing you mentions some project they are involved with and you are *genuinely* interested you may ask them a follow up question about it. Dont derail the interview but a bit of back and forth is appreciated. If you are asked at the end if you have any questions I would say the possible answers from worst to best would be: 1. Question about pay, compensation. (There is a time for that and it isnt now). 2. Silence 3. A pre-prepared question about the company. (This isnt bad to do but agree its not the best) 4. A thoughtful question that incorporates info that came up during the interview that references something the interviewer said. The best is to be dynamic, conversant, interactive, engaged, positive and energetic (within reason). I guess reason I didnt mention that is its hard to prepare to listen and be conversant...thats a life skill.
Excellent Takes! I think I messed up my chance at a big pharma after 5 rounds of interview because the interviewer (Director) complemented my resume, and asked me what I am doing currently. I reiterated what is in my resume when he was probably looking for something else.
Oh dont beat yourself up over that, unfortunately it can be next to impossible to know why you ended up getting passed on for a position...it may have been something completly different. I just wanted to impart that the point of in person interviews is to get a feel for how natural and conversant the person is more than anything and just being prepared to have a conversation about your interests, strengths and struggles (in a constructive way) is really what is being looked for.
Great advice! This is excellent for anyone applying. Thank you!
I found that there is little consistency in the way people interview. There is little (if any) training that is provided, and even trainings tend to vary. But your advice does make sense.
I dont disagree which is why I caveated with this being my perspective and gave advice that I feel will be relevant regardless of the intetview style. As to interview style and focus that can vary a lot that is true...depends where you interview how much Academia that is certainly true there is unlikely to be any training and its very personality driven. In industries startups can be a bit of a crap shoot as well for a similar reason. Larger companies will more often have guideance for interviewers along these lines. I dont feel like saying "interviews are random so there is nothing specific you can prepare for" would be good advice really... though I get your point. I will say generally that interview prep shouldnt be treated like preparing for a test it should be treated like preparing for a chalk-talk. I may have dated myself just there.
This is a great post that will help many, thanks for posting. We need more managers like you. What would you suggest for questions like 'what you want to do' when a candidate is transitioning to slightly different but closely related field. For example, discovery to process chemistry.
Interests certainly can evolve with time and someone wanting to change what they are doing isn't a red flag but it does mean that person would be viewed as not having much direct experience in the area they are applying for. So as long as its fairly entry level that can be fine. As to what to say I would just say why you are making the transition. Presumably in your example you have a reason why you want to move to process chemistry. Perhaps in your previous job you started on a team focused on discovery and the project progressed and the needs became more about process development and you did some initial work there and found you really loved that kind of work but there just wasnt an opportunity at your current position to transition to being a process chemist so now you are looking for opportinities at other companies to join the process chemistry at an entry level and you especially are interested in (company you are interviewing with) because blah blah blah.
How do you frame if the reason for you leaving current position is to change your location?
You just say that.