Recruiting & Retaining A Competitive Workforce: Pharma, Biotech and Medical Devices

1 Recruiting & retaining a competitive workforce
Spotlight on: US employers 2014

Recruiting & retaining
a competitive workforce
Pharma, biotech and medical devices

3

Introduction
Methodology
Employer perceptions and their impact on
stafng and retention
The commercial environment
The staffng market
Staffng trends and challenges
Tailoring the employer proposition
The international question
Paying attention to retention
Conclusion
Salary and market trends
Clinical Operations
Research & Development
Quality Assurance
Regulatory Affairs
Pharmacovigilance & Drug Safety
Medical Affairs
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
Biometrics
Sales & Marketing
Medical Communications
Operations
Contents
6
7
14
22
23
26
31
34
35
36
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Methodology
This report is based on the US results of our worldwide employer
survey, conducted with over 200 leading pharma, biotech and medical
devices organizations from across the world. Participants ranged from
small start ups and SMEs, to some of the worlds largest pharma and
medical devices companies.
Further industry insight is based on the perceptions and experiences
shared by US pharma, biotech and medical devices companies at
our series of roundtables, held in New York, San Diego and San
Francisco. The roundtables were attended by senior decision-makers,
including representatives from leading organizations. Addressing the
key themes raised by employees across the industry in 2013, our
roundtables explored the impact of changing employee expectations,
together with the impact of an increasingly competitive and global
marketplace as organizations look to build sustainable workforces.
Introduction
The pharma, biotech and medical devices sectors continue to face
signifcant change. Increased competition, tightening regulations and
increased global expansion are all impacting salaries, benefts and the
ability of organizations to build sustainable workforces.
In this report we explore how organizations are managing the
changing expectations and perceptions highlighted by employees in
our 2013 report; from increased market confdence and willingness to
move jobs, to an increasingly migratory talent pool. We also examine
employers drivers for the future, together with how organizations plan
to recruit and retain talent.
Drawing on insight from our global employer survey, series of US
roundtables and the experience of our network of dedicated staffng
specialists, this report looks at the factors affecting employers across
the industry and helps to understand what companies need to do to
recruit and retain a competitive workforce.
Before we explore staffng and retention within the life sciences
sector its worthwhile exploring the overall commercial
motivations for organizations if we are to understand how these
are likely to impact staffng trends across the United States and
beyond.
If companies are looking to downsize or rationalize their business
operations then this will obviously impact their staffng plans in
2014 and beyond. Likewise, if companies are looking to enter
new markets or develop new products this will impact not just
headcount but also the type of people they are looking to hire, as
well as the type of people they could be willing to lose.
Its hardly surprising that increasing market share is the main
priority for 2014 according to almost 70% (69.6%) of our panel.
Faced with a declining prescription market and the loss of patent
protection weve already seen big pharma diluting its local
reliance, instead focusing on markets such as Africa and China.
For example, last year we saw that for the frst time multinational
drug companies were employing more sales people in China
than in the US, even though the US remains the largest pharma
market globally. Companies are making massive investments in
markets like China. Sales are not the only driving force though,
with several of the worlds largest drug companies building major
R&D centres in these rapidly emerging markets.
But with new markets come new challenges that could add to
the levels of operating complexity. This means the make-up
of staffng strategies is likely to be impacted, from the balance
between contract and perm hires and the type of people
companies are looking to recruit, to the make-up of teams and
projects, and location strategies.
With over two thirds of companies looking to increase market
share in the next 12 months, its worthwhile understanding how
that growth is going to be achieved. Indeed the second most
important commercial objective according to our panel is organic
growth. Taking into consideration Africa is still considered a
relatively small market (despite accounting for 11% of the worlds
population and 24% of the global disease burden, according
to the World Health Organisation) and Latin America which is
already considered to be worth more than $70 billion, many of
the companies we spoke to feel the market still has major growth
potential without the need to consolidate markets or acquire
existing companies or products to increase their market share.
If growth is a major driver, and organic growth is the preferred
means of achieving that, then this can, and will no doubt have a
signifcant impact on the pharma, biotech and medical devices
staffng market; not just locally, but also globally.
The commercial environment
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

m
a
r
k
e
t

s
h
a
r
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
P
r
o
t
e
c
t

m
a
r
k
e
t

s
h
a
r
e
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

o
r
g
a
n
i
c

g
r
o
w
t
h
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

m
e
r
g
e
r

o
r

a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n

i
n
t
o

n
e
w

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

m
a
r
k
e
t
s
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n

i
n
t
o

n
e
w

d
i
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e
s

e
.
g
.

m
e
d
i
c
a
l

d
e
v
i
c
e
s
/
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
s
D
e
v
e
l
o
p

n
e
w

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
What are your commercial objectives/goals for the next 3 years?
%
69.6
26.1
34.8
43.5
21.7 21.7 21.7
47.8
7
A condent market
At the beginning of 2013 we spoke to employees working across
the pharma, biotech and medical devices sectors to understand
how comfortable they were with their current job security and
whether this was likely to impact their willingness to look for a
new job in the year ahead.
Almost 82% of employees surveyed (81.8%) stated they had
no concerns over their job security, with almost a ffth of people
(19.3%) saying they were very confdent. At the time this could
have had something to do with the rise in consumer confdence
happening across the US or the rise in job opportunities within
the pharma and healthcare industries, which saw an increase of
28,000 in the previous October.
This confdence went as far as to impact how many people
would look for a new job in 2013. In fact, nearly 80% (79.2%) of
our survey population said theyd be either Extremely likely or
Likely to look for a new job in 2013. Whether this has translated
into people moving has yet to be seen but employers appear to
back up this level of market confdence after 69.6% said they
would be looking to recruit in decent numbers in 2014 and only
8.7% said they were unlikely to recruit in the year ahead.
The stafng market
How likely are you to look for a new role in the next 12 months? US employee perspective 2013
Extremely likely Unlikely
Likely Extremely unlikely
How condent do you feel about your job security? US employee perspective 2013
Very condent
Neither condent
nor worried
Very concerned
Quite condent
Quite concerned
6.4% 35.8% 26.7% 19.3% 11.8%
Are you looking to recruit over the next 12 months?
Yes
No
Unsure
8.7%
69.6%
21.7%
44.4%
34.8%
18.2% 2.7%
A shallower talent pool?
Considering employee motivation to move in 2013 was very
high, less than 18% of our employer panel (17.4%) felt the size
of the talent pool had increased, suggesting that although many
people would consider a new role, a smaller proportion of those
had actively entered the job market. Whats more, over half of
our US panel (52.2%) felt the size of the talent pool had, in fact,
stayed the same compared to the same time last year which goes
against what American employees were saying 12 months ago.
Of course pharma, biotech and medical devices companies
are defned by the need to evolve and as a result demand for
certain skill sets is always evolving too. With that in mind, the
contradiction between employees saying they are willing to
move and the employers who feel the market is pretty stagnant,
suggests the people looking to enter the job market are not
aligned to the types of skill sets employers are looking for.
This makes sense in that those employees who are feeling
threatened, undervalued and rudder-less are the ones whose
roles are most at risk, hence their keenness to move. But that
also means those at risk are in the least demand and so although
people are willing and eager to move, the types of work they do
are not aligned to the growth areas required for the next
12 months.
But this discrepancy could be driven in part by the fact that the
market was evolving rather than simply growing, and that the
anticipated job opportunities never materialized. It could also
mean employers were doing more to hold onto their talent and
that the opportunities and benefts available to people currently
inside a company had increased or become more aligned to their
own individual requirements.
Somewhat surprisingly almost a third of respondents (30.4%)
said they felt the size of the talent pool had actually decreased
and they had struggled to fnd people as a result.
Our New York roundtable suggested that SMEs found this more
diffcult to manage as they expect a more diverse skill set and
greater project management experience to be able to run
multi-million dollar projects. But on the plus side this same
audience also said they are more interested in human capital
and that the calibre and quality of the person was the frst
consideration and the roles they were ultimately placed in were
based on the skills they possessed. Its this fexibility that means
whilst SMEs and the big pharma companies are still fshing in the
same talent pool in terms of the skill sets sought, they are looking
at talent in a very different light. With SMEs more focused on the
calibre and future potential of human capital, rather than skill sets
alone, they are better positioned to capitalize on the available
talent, whilst avoiding direct competition with the big pharmas.
Interestingly though, we are starting to see a mindshift in big
pharma as they work towards a leaner business model and
focus on enhancing their pipeline productivity. We see these
organizations increasingly realizing the importance of hiring
people with the ability to take on more diverse roles and there
is now a forward-looking approach with employers looking
towards future succession. Whilst signs are still early, this has the
potential to be a signifcant change in the market.
The medical devices industry approaches skills shortages in a
much different way than big pharma, and like smaller companies
focuses not on flling open roles but instead looks to source the
right people when they become available. One of our San Diego
panel reiterated this when they said: We dont recruit people for
an open position; we recruit people all the time. Having a pipeline
of the best talent is key to our hiring policy and means we dont
fnd ourselves making compromises when the market becomes
competitive.
In the past 12 months do you think the available
talent pool has:
Increased
Decreased
Stayed the same
30.4%
17.4% 52.2%
9
When recruiting people rather than simply flling roles though,
employers have had to adapt their staffng strategies so that
people become much more attracted to the potential of a
company rather than the specifcation of a job. Our San Diego
panellists further highlighted how medical devices companies are
taking a different approach. One participant said, As a business
we recognize the need to be more creative in how we attract
talent. Although relocations, sign on bonuses, stock and salaries
are key, as time goes on the need for increased creativity in the
market and in the workplace becomes more important. Back in
the day it was all about active and passive staffng techniques.
Now its all about creating and promoting an atmosphere in
which people want to stay. Good employees always have
options, so the culture of our business becomes very important
to how we recruit.
Areas in demand
Considering the top three commercial objectives of our employer
panel were based around increasing market share, organic
growth and the development of new products, its hardly
surprising that the main areas employers were looking to bolster
their teams underpinned these commercial considerations.
Research & Development (R&D) was tied as the most popular
area for companies recruiting in 2014, with 43.8% of respondents
saying this was a particular focus for their growth. R&D has faced
a big mountain to climb over recent years, with the patent cliff
and fewer new drug approvals, but in the last few years R&D has
accelerated signifcantly.
In fact 2012 saw the FDA approve 39 new drugs, the biggest
increase in more than a decade. If companies are looking
to increase their market share and continue to develop new
products then this momentum needs to continue. US pharmas
position as the trailblazer of new drug development will no doubt
play a major part in these growth cycles but only if companies
look at the bigger picture.
Considering the appetite for R&D growth, we still saw some
major pharma companies cutting their research & development
budgets in the third quarter of 2013, despite acknowledging this
was key to product development and how they develop their
business to meet their commercial objectives.
In November 2013 Fitch Ratings said it expected R&D to
continue to show restraint with regards to spending but they
acknowledged that most cuts have already occurred. Indeed
our research shows that for almost one in two companies we
spoke to, that change has already occurred and investment
in R&D is likely to increase in 2014, although in a much more
revolutionary way.
In our recent San Diego roundtable our panel reiterated this
focus and agreed that companies need to look to the longer
term if they are to be ahead of the curve. One of our panellists
said the focus had switched to healthcare as a preventative
measure rather than as a cure and that as a result there is a
much more direct-to-consumer focus. They acknowledged
that at present the physician/doctor calls the shots but said
this is changing and will continue to change over the months
and years ahead.
Quality Assurance is unsurprisingly an area in demand in
2014, with the same number of people saying this was a key
area for growth as those that said the same for R&D (43.8%).
Over the last few years weve heard allegations of signifcant
and systemic quality control failings, particularly within the
emerging markets. Stories about different strength drugs
being packaged together, poor quality packaging and system
infections have all impacted the perception of QA in these
markets.
Although many companies are investing signifcantly
in QA to combat issues such as these, pharmaceutical
manufacturing will continue to be put under greater scrutiny
by the FDA as inspections at factories and all other parts of
the supply chain become increasingly critical. Indeed at our
New York roundtable participants suggested that regulation is
becoming increasingly stringent and as a result companies are
facing greater pressure to improve standards.
Similarly as medical devices companies face tightening
regulations surrounding new products, we see a rising level
of demand for QA professionals within this space, and with a
limited talent pool in this area we see frms increasingly
turning to the pharma & biotech sector.

Growth disciplines:
R & D
Quality Assurance
Sales & Marketing
Running in parallel with these developments are the stricter
quality and safety standards that are also impacting growth
and diversifcation. The FDAs Process Analytical Technology
(PAT) guidance and the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)
have had, and will continue to have, a signifcant impact on
development.
They are also having an impact on staffng trends according
to our San Diego roundtable panel. Some of the participants
acknowledged that even though they dont look for FDA
approval on some products, relying instead on CE Marking,
they are noticing an interest from Europe in US talent because
of the strength of their FDA experience.
This increased focus has shown an emerging trend for
companies of all sizes. In the past outsourcing regulatory
and quality assurance was de rigueur for companies large
and small, but this is likely to change as companies become
increasingly cautious and look to bring talent in-house. This
facilitates greater control and less reliance on third parties
being able to adhere to their own internal and regulatory
standards; hence the anticipated growth in staffng in these
areas. As a result salaries are also likely to spike in the next
12 months as the best talent becomes increasingly attractive,
enabling such individuals to command a premium.
Sales & marketing is also a discipline facing signifcant
change and companies are adapting these functions to
enable them to evolve to meet changes in the market. So
much so that almost a third of our respondents (31.3%) said
this was a key area for growth in 2014.
After more than 5 years of cost cutting to readdress the balance
between private and public promotion, and the growing
direct-to-consumer market, weve already seen the gap between
patients and their physicians bridged and the emergence
of consumer focused content strategies. This has had a major
impact on sales and marketing professionals, particularly when
we consider:
New relationships: Insurance companies are playing a bigger
part in the healthcare conversation according to our San Diego
panel. They acknowledged that in the past end-users were
doctors and physicians but as the market has changed we now
have a whole new mix of people, and more and more insurance
companies have become decision makers, taking the place of
physicians. This has signifcantly changed the dialogue between
sales and marketing professionals and their customers.
Big data: Pharma, biotech and medical devices are not exempt
from the discussion around big data according to our San
Francisco panel and the role of analytics has become much
more prevalent in pharma companies in particular. With the
advent of one-to-one, rather than one-to-many sales and
marketing programmes, data and personalized care will be
a big driver for the future. But developing preventative and
personalized healthcare is inextricably linked to ongoing
research, data and analytics.
Collaboration: PWC believes that by 2020 all new medicines
will be paid for on the basis of the outcomes they deliver. Good
medicines will still be the cornerstone of any pharmaceutical
companys marketing and sales strategy, but they will not be
employed in isolation. PWC went so far as to suggest that
by 2020 pharma companies will need to collaborate much
more closely with everyone in healthcare, to provide products
and services patients will want to choose from. This means
differentiation will be a key driver for all parties in the process
and will be the basis on which sales and marketing programmes
develop.
Mobile apps: New technologies are changing the way doctors
and patients communicate. Although many of the new apps are
designed for physicians, with things such as drug and disease
databases, blood pressure and glucose monitors, others
have been designed to be able to gather patient diagnostic
information or simply to help co-ordinate care, giving patients
an easy way to keep track of their conditions and treatments.
The end user again becomes a key audience for sales and
marketing functions across the country.
Social media and the empowered customer: With consumers
being more proactive in how they manage their health,
patients have become much more infuential and the impact
of social media on their ability to get the word out is impacting
companies. On the whole though companies have been slow
to react to this change but many regard it as a key driver for the
future.
To fnd out the
impact of sector changes
and a changing industry
landscape on supply, demand
and salaries across each
discipline please refer to the
salaries and market trends
section of this report.
11
The balance between contract and perm
For the frst time in a number of years demand for permanent
members of staff is an increasingly attractive proposition for
companies within pharma, biotech and medical devices. Of
the 69.6% that said theyd defnitely be looking to recruit in
2014, 43% (43.1%) said theyd focus on recruiting permanent
members of staff only.
This reiterates what our roundtables and our survey have shown,
namely that getting talent into an organization for the long-term is
seen as a more attractive proposition for companies than either
working with specialists on a short term basis or outsourcing
major areas of commercial potential. This will obviously
impact the headcount burden of organizations nationwide,
but it also suggests that confdence in the US market is
higher than it has been for a number of years.
Even though permanent staffng is increasing in popularity,
companies are still looking towards a more blended
approach; with over half of our panel (52.9%) saying they
are looking to recruit both contract and permanent people in
2014. This blended approach means that companies can
fex their headcount as the market and their product lifecycles
dictate, without over-exposing themselves with a large
headcount burden.
Which disciplines are you recruiting for?
50
40
30
20
10
0
R
&
D
C
l
i
n
i
c
a
l

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
P
h
a
r
m
a
c
o
v
i
g
i
l
a
n
c
e
a
n
d

d
r
u
g

s
a
f
e
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y

A
f
f
a
i
r
s
M
e
d
i
c
a
l

A
f
f
a
i
r
s
H
E
O
R
B
i
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
s
S
a
l
e
s

&

M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
%
43.8
12.5 12.5
18.8
31.3
25.0
6.3
6.3
8.4
43.8
In our roundtables, held in New York, San Diego and San
Francisco our panels reiterated that a contract and
permanent approach to staffng provides them with not just
the fexibility they need but also allows them to fll project or
assignment-driven skills gaps that are not necessary for the
long-term. With sales and marketing and R&D continuing to
drive commercial and organizational objectives, but
headcount being a constant pressure, outsourcing parts of
the process lifecycle are becoming increasingly attractive
and viable.
This is particularly pertinent in the sales function where, in
2012 the American Medical Association reported that pharma
companies had looked to cut 30% from their sales forces
and instead looked to contract sales organizations (CSOs) to
strengthen their sales function.
The relationship between big pharma and CROs is also
becoming much more ingrained in that many are moving
from a paid service provider relationship into a more strategic
partnership for the longer term. This evolution means
companies are able to develop their internal resources
around their long-term objectives, while increasing their
access to dedicated expertise that can either shore up their
teams or provide access to experience and expertise
required on a short term basis.

But theres also a potential re-emergence in the war for
talent across pharma, biotech and medical devices globally
if the desire to recruit permanent members of staff translates
into action. Top talent is always going to be in demand but
as R&D, QA, and sales & marketing become increasingly
attractive we expect to see demand rise, the talent pool
shrink, and, as a result salaries will grow over the next few
years.
Perm only
Contract/interim only
Both
43.1%
52.8%
4.1%
On what basis are you looking to recruit?
Yes
No
Unsure
8.7%
69.6%
21.7%
13
53% of organizations are
adopting a blended approach and
plan to recruit both contract and
permanent staf in 2014.
Competition
Considering the job market was less fuid than expected in 2013
and the talent in demand was seemingly in short supply, one
of the biggest staffng trends seen by companies in the US has
been increased competition for the best people, which jointly
topped our table with more than half of our panel saying this was
a key trend (52.2%). This seems to refect that certain skills are
increasingly in demand and this is where employers struggle to
fnd or compete for talent.
It therefore comes as no surprise that when we asked our panel
what their key staffng challenges were, the main issue facing
the vast majority of respondents (78.3%) was competition for
the best talent. On paper this seems obvious, considering weve
seen a strong focus on a specifc number of key disciplines. And
when demand outstrips supply you will always see competition
driving up prices and many companies being priced out of the
market. However, at our roundtables this issue wasnt as clear cut
as it would seem.
Our San Francisco and San Diego events suggested that big
pharma was not sourcing candidates from the same talent pool
as smaller pharma, biotech and medical devices companies, and
although there was overlap with the roles on paper, in reality the
jobs they were recruiting for and the people they were recruiting
to do them were very different.
Weve already seen that medical devices companies have a
different approach to talent in that they recruit strong people to
build a long-term talent pipeline, while big pharma companies
tend to recruit for specifc and highly structured job profles. But
When recruiting, which of the following trends have you seen?
Stafng trends and challenges
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

p
o
o
l

o
f

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

t
a
l
e
n
t
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

s
a
l
a
r
y

a
n
d

b
o
n
u
s

e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g

w
o
r
k
/
l
i
f
e

b
a
l
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

f
e
x
i
b
l
e

b
e
n
e
f
t
s
L
a
c
k

o
f

s
k
i
l
l
e
d

p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s

o
n

t
h
e

m
a
r
k
e
t
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

t
h
e

b
e
s
t

p
e
o
p
l
e
%
8.7
30.4 30.4
52.2
43.5
52.2
15
even though pharma, biotech and medical devices are looking at
different people profles, they still acknowledge that competition
from likeminded organizations is impacting their ability to meet
their staffng challenges and adapting their employer proposition
has become fundamental if they are to compete for talent
effectively.
The strength of competition within the market is also leading
many companies to look outside their standard frame of
reference. Some even went as far as to say they were forced to
look outside their own industry or sector (30.4%) and referrals
are a big part of their staffng pipeline. In San Francisco in
particular one medical devices panellist said referrals from outside
the sector were a viable staffng channel for them and that they
looked towards their network to refer friends that arent in the
industry, with the view to moulding them to ft their requirements.

Competition
for talent is the biggest
factor impacting 78% of
US employers.
When recruiting, what challenges/issues does your organization face?
8.3
0.0 0.0
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
L
a
c
k

o
f

l
o
c
a
l

t
a
l
e
n
t
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n

f
o
r
l
o
c
a
l

t
a
l
e
n
t

f
r
o
m

a
b
r
o
a
d
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

t
a
l
e
n
t
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

b
e
s
t

t
a
l
e
n
t
L
a
c
k

o
f

s
k
i
l
l
e
d

t
a
l
e
n
t

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
A
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

c
o
m
p
e
t
e

o
n

s
a
l
a
r
y

a
n
d

f
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

b
e
n
e
f
t
s
A
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

c
o
m
p
e
t
e

o
n

f
e
x
i
b
l
e

b
e
n
e
f
t
s
/
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
/
c
o
m
p
a
n
y

c
u
l
t
u
r
e
A
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

c
o
m
p
e
t
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r

r
e
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
/
b
r
a
n
d
T
a
r
g
e
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

r
i
g
h
t

p
e
o
p
l
e
M
a
n
a
g
i
n
g

t
h
e

r
e
c
r
u
i
t
m
e
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
N
o
n
e

w
e

d
o
n
t

h
a
v
e

a
n
y

c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
39.1
78.3
8.7
52.2
17.4
21.7
8.7
30.4
4.3
Work/life balance and exible benets
Over half of pharma, biotech and medical devices organizations
(52.2%) have seen both potential employees and their existing
workforce become much more demanding in what they expect
from their employers, which has led to increased expectations
surrounding work/life balance and fexible benefts programmes.
Our 2013 employee report pre-empted this change when it
showed that 71.5% of people said that fexible working was either
extremely important or important when considering a new role.
As this trend is acknowledged across the industry it would
appear employers have been taking notice and adapting
their employer propositions as a result. In fact, fexible
working is increasingly being used as a tool to attract and
retain talent in R&D, biostatistics and sales functions in the
US. The shortage of experienced permanent employees in
these key areas has led to a sharp rise in the number of
people being offered the opportunity to work from home or
part time, as employers look to make their proposition much
more compelling.
What steps have you taken/do you plan to take to address your recruitment challenges?
Look internationally for talent
Adopt a more fexible staffng policy
Increase salaries
Extend beneft packages
Develop internal talent
Look for talent outside industry sector
Outsource recruitment
Nothing
8.7%
21.7%
8.7%
39.1%
39.1%
30.4%
17.4%
21.7%
17
52% of employers have
seen rising expectations
surrounding work/life balance.
How important are the following factors when looking for a new role? US employee perspective 2013
Salary
Location
Flexible working
Beneft package
Bonus
Opportunities for career progression
Company culture
Scope of role/projects
Job security
*Based on respondents who considered factor
important or very important.
80.0%
71.5%
62.1%
56.3%
80.4%
75.5%
79.3%
69.1%
Lack of local talent and the availability
of skilled talent
The third most popular staffng trend reiterates the need
for employers to be more fexible and attractive to potential
employees when recruiting hard to fll jobs. 43.5% of our
respondents said there was a distinct lack of skilled professionals
in the areas they were looking to recruit into and so many were
focusing on how they make themselves more attractive to the
people they are trying to recruit.
Considering organizations already feel there is a lack of skilled
talent available and that competition is driving demand across
key strategic disciplines, its hardly surprising that the second
biggest challenge facing recruiters was the perceived lack of
skilled talent, which was an issue for over half of our panel
(52.2%).
96.0%
19
With demand putting pressure on supply people deemed to
be the best in their feld are able to demand a premium. They
can effectively pick and choose their favored employer, their
fnancial package and the terms of their engagement, which
means companies with bigger budgets, stronger or more defned
employer propositions or those offering the best career potential
have the best chance of succeeding, leaving many companies
underwhelmed by the talent available.
In fact when we asked what steps companies are taking to
address their staffng challenges weve seen that companies are
looking inwardly (39.1%), but also adopting more fexible staffng
policies (39.1%).
This has led some SMEs to re-evaluate their staffng strategy
and focus on up-skilling people that are currently in their
organization or looking at other less well travelled avenues
of recruitment. One panellist said We really need to focus on
developing our interns/graduates now, while acknowledging
that this is only good for the mid-term at best.
Another said: We need to ensure that succession planning
continues to be important to us. Companies like ours need
to think about bench strength. It has been neglected by the
industry over the past few years but we need to think about
the longer-term future, not just the next game.
Our panel were keen to highlight though that when
considering succession planning it is important to stop and
consider whether employees tipped for succession actually
have the right skill sets to take on leadership roles. One
participant went as far as to highlight; We are still focused,
like many organizations, on hiring best-in-class academic
and scientifc talent without stopping to think whether they
have the competencies to be future leaders. However, when
the time comes we expect our best technical talent to
automatically have the skills to become managers and build
teams and we are seeing now that that is not always the
case. Organizations must therefore consider their long-term
needs when hiring and consider fexibility in skill sets in
order to bring in the right talent.
In San Diego one panellist was taking a much more creative
approach to their staffng activity and the need to build a
future talent bench, when they said, We are thinking about
the 125,000 people coming back into the workforce from
the military in the next few months. These are highly skilled
people but we need to help ease their transition back into the
workplace as many are nervous about moving into corporate
life.

The second
biggest challenge facing
recruiters was the
perceived lack of skilled
talent.
The question of money
Ironically salary appears to be less important to employers
when they consider why they sometimes struggle to recruit,
even though 96% of our candidate panel last year said this
was the most important factor in their job search. In fact,
less than a ffth (17.4%) of employers considered their ability
to compete on salary and fnancial benefts a challenge.
Considering that in 2013 39.3% of our US employee panel
said theyd be willing to move to Europe for a role that better
met their needs and with salary tipping the scale of needs,
then US employers are at risk of losing their best people or
at least signifcantly reducing their talent base if they fail to
evaluate their fnancial offering effectively.
In San Francisco, our panel acknowledged this might be the
case but had accepted they were powerless to do anything about
it. One panellist went so far as to say that their salary limits were
not just impacting their ability to recruit people but also their ability
to retain them.
Although theres been tacit acknowledgment that salary is a key
factor, in the main our panel felt that salary will only take people
so far. Some were more accepting that fnancial rewards were a
key driver for talent but agreed that because of their limits they
needed to take a much more personal approach to fnancial
reward and design programmes that took into account stocks,
which was a key driver for SMEs and medical devices companies,
cash incentives and bonus programmes to make their packages
much more attractive to potential and current employees.
When recruiting, what challenges/issues does your organization face?
8.3
0.0
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
L
a
c
k

o
f

l
o
c
a
l

t
a
l
e
n
t
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n

f
o
r
l
o
c
a
l

t
a
l
e
n
t

f
r
o
m

a
b
r
o
a
d
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

b
e
s
t

t
a
l
e
n
t
L
a
c
k

o
f

s
k
i
l
l
e
d

t
a
l
e
n
t

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
A
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

c
o
m
p
e
t
e

o
n

s
a
l
a
r
y

a
n
d

f
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

b
e
n
e
f
t
s
A
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

c
o
m
p
e
t
e

o
n

f
e
x
i
b
l
e

b
e
n
e
f
t
s
/
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
/
c
o
m
p
a
n
y

c
u
l
t
u
r
e
A
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

c
o
m
p
e
t
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r

r
e
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
/
b
r
a
n
d
T
a
r
g
e
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

r
i
g
h
t

p
e
o
p
l
e
M
a
n
a
g
i
n
g

t
h
e

r
e
c
r
u
i
t
m
e
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
N
o
n
e

w
e

d
o
n
t

h
a
v
e

a
n
y

c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
39.1
78.3
8.7
52.2
17.4
21.7
8.7
30.4
4.3
21
Less than a fth of
employers consider their ability
to compete on salary and benets
a challenge.
Our roundtables showed that as the requirements between
medical devices and pharma & biotech organizations differed
greatly, the approach they took to recruiting and the way they
went about securing people was also very different.
In New York one of our panel accepted that staffng had changed
signifcantly and that companies were competing for the best
talent rather than the other way around. This changed the whole
dynamic of their staffng strategies and it had become obvious
they now had to be very clear on their employer proposition.
One went as far as to say, Rather than having a
one-size-fts-all approach, we now have to identify the
differences that are important to the job categories we are
recruiting for. For example, if we are talking to scientists, then we
have to be clear and honest about our current pipeline if we want
to build trust and rapport. And that takes a major culture change
for us, where in the past secrecy was the norm.
Participants at our San Francisco event highlighted the fact they
are focusing on their candidate experience to put their culture
at the heart of their staffng strategy. One panellist said they
had learned to focus on the whole staffng experience. From
the moment they apply to join us to the moment we accept
or reject their application, we focus on making the experience
positive and set the foundations for a transparent and honest
relationship.
This was reiterated in New York when a participant said for them
its all about the personal touch. Its all about what the applicants
experience; who meets them at the door, what their initial
experience is like when they enter the building; who is talking
to them when they are interviewing; what the process feels like
for an outsider and how we make the candidate feel. They went
even further and acknowledged that retention starts at the
beginning of the whole staffng process we have to invest in the
employer experience and build rapport from the start.
When we explore this further we see organizations across the
industry are increasingly conscious of the importance of their
company culture. One participant at our New York roundtable
emphasized this, saying: When it comes to culture vs. strategy,
then culture always wins. If you cant align your strategy to
your culture its a non-starter. With both SMEs and larger
organizations able to draw on the resources of their HR function,
they are often able to build their culture from the ground up,
embedding it within the organization and employees from the
outset.
So although there are differences between the types of people
companies within these highly competitive sectors are recruiting
and also in the way those people are enticed, overall theres
been a greater focus on developing a strong employer brand that
becomes integral to how they recruit and how successful their
staffng is.
That being said, many employers acknowledged that
developing a strong employer brand was something new to their
organizations and something they were learning how to design,
develop and promote. The general consensus from all of our
events was:
Nobody really works at it with the vigor that we need.
People forget that we also get branded based on the reputation
we promote through our staff.
We are not creating the buzz to become a great employer brand.
Tailoring the employer proposition

Developing
a strong employer brand
has become integral to
how a company recruits
and how successful their
stafng is.
23
The international question
Although competition and scarcity of talent are the main
concerns for companies, and they are having to be more fexible
regarding the people they recruit, its perhaps surprising that only
a minority of our respondents agreed to looking outside the US
to extend their talent pool, with less than 9% (8.7%) saying this
was a way for them to address their staffng challenges.
Considering that across Europe last year almost three
quarters of employees said they would consider an
international relocation (74.2%), and of those over half
would consider moving to the United States (55.3%),
its perhaps a little surprising that whilst companies
acknowledge they have challenges fnding the right talent
in the US, few are currently drawing on this pool of talent.
However, a large proportion of respondents (30.4%) did say
they would consider recruiting internationally in the next
few years, demonstrating an increasing willingness to fex
staffng strategies.
Where would you consider relocating?
European employee perspective 2013
93.2%
55.3%
40.6%
Within Europe
US
Asia Pac
Considering this potential change in strategy its worthwhile
understanding why people would consider looking towards other
regions for their staffng activity. Unsurprisingly the key reasons
companies are looking elsewhere is the belief that it provides
them with access to new skill sets (66.7%) and that it provides a
wider talent pool from which to recruit from (55.6%).
When we introduced this notion to our roundtables we saw a key
division between big pharma and the smaller companies. Big
pharma appeared to be more receptive to this idea, particularly
at senior level, where people recognized it as being increasingly
important that senior staff experience diversity and bring this
experience into their company.
Indeed a third of respondents to our survey (33.3%) backed
up this notion when they agreed that recruiting globally gave
them access to international experience, which in the
increasingly complex nature of pharma in particular, is
becoming a key driver for competitive advantage. SMEs on
the other hand felt that because of the costs and complexity
associated with recruiting internationally it wasnt a particularly
attractive/viable option.
How likely are you to recruit international talent?
Likely
- considering
recruiting
international talent
Certain
- already
recruiting
international
talent/plan to
in the future
Never
- recruiting
international
talent is not
an option
Unlikely
- not currently
considering recruiting
international talent
We havent
considered it
8.7% 30.4% 17.4% 30.4% 13.1%
Why would you consider recruiting international talent?
Regulate not accumulate
Regardless of the size or reach of the companies we spoke to,
everyone agreed the government makes it so diffcult to recruit
across international borders. They acknowledged that the visa
process was overly-complex, limiting and cumbersome, and as a
result the effort for the rewards was yet to be understood.
At each of our roundtable events people had tales to tell about
issues associated with onboarding international talent. One
person even went so far as to talk about how it took them six
months to recruit someone from South Africa to the US and that
this has turned them against trying similar activities in the future.
Even for the companies that have had a positive experience
when recruiting internationally, many acknowledged that even
if you were to recruit across borders, regardless of the red tape
and complications of doing so, the shelf life of such a hire is
again limited by legislation, since within 2 years of them joining
the company they are again faced with localization issues,
making this another key hurdle for companies looking to increase
their competitiveness.
If people continue to be receptive to moving internationally for
better salaries, career opportunities and better work/life balance
(and 33.8% of US employees said they would in 2013) then our
panel agreed this will severely limit the future potential of their
organization.
Wider talent pool
Lower recruitment costs
Access to new skills
Lack of local talent
Unable to compete locally for talent
Access international experience
55.6%
11.1%
11.1%
66.7%
0.0%
33.3%
25
Why are you unlikely to recruit international talent?
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

b
a
r
r
i
e
r
L
a
c
k

o
f

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
a
b
l
e

q
u
a
l
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
L
a
c
k

o
f

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
C
o
s
t

o
f

r
e
c
r
u
i
t
m
e
n
t
U
n
a
b
l
e

t
o

c
o
m
p
e
t
e

w
i
t
h

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
a
l
a
r
i
e
s

/

b
e
n
e
f
t
s
U
n
s
u
r
e

w
h
e
r
e

t
o

l
o
o
k
P
r
e
f
e
r

t
o

e
m
p
l
o
y

l
o
c
a
l

t
a
l
e
n
t
If not, why not?
Considering that almost one in two Europeans would seriously
consider moving abroad and, of those, 55.3% would consider
moving to the US its worthwhile understanding why companies
in the US do not consider this to be a viable source for talent.
Apart from the fact the vast majority (69.4%) would prefer to
employ local talent only, when we explore this in further detail
it appears that companies on the whole focus on the negative
aspects of recruiting this way rather than the potential benefts
of doing so. The reasons for not recruiting internationally tend to
focus on the lack of something, for instance: language barriers
(38.7%), lack of knowledge around local regulations (29.0%) or
lack of transferable qualifcations (14.5%). Cultural differences
were also seen as a negative impact by almost a quarter of
respondents (24.2%).
Our panel acknowledged that these reasons could be seen
as short-sighted, and recognized that as global, multicultural
organizations, expecting all employees to speak one common
language and have a common frame of reference has the
potential to severely limit the impact of international talent on
their company and leave them potentially unable to compete
globally.
Back in 2011 Forbes found that language barriers have a
broad and all-encompassing impact on US business and
suggested that diversity of language can mean companies
commit fewer mistakes, increase effciency, productivity and
quality, and even go so far as to promote a safer working
environment. It seems though that US pharma in particular
has some way to go to recognize this potential value and see
international talent as an advantage rather than a burden.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
38.7
29.0
24.2
9.7
8.1
33.9
69.4
14.5
%
Misplaced condence?
More than asking whether people have confdence in their ability
to retain their people, we explore where this confdence comes
from and whether companies are right to be so confdent.

Somewhat surprisingly the main reason companies feel retention
is not an issue is the fact that they feel their organization offers
competitive salary/fnancial benefts (55.3%). This confdence
could be very much misplaced however when we consider what
employees said last year. In 2013, 61.5% of people employed in
US pharma, biotech and medical devices said the primary reason
theyd look to move jobs is for a better salary while only 15.4%
of those planning on staying in their current role said they are
happy with their current salary/benefts. This suggests a major
disconnect between what employees think they are worth and
what employers think they are worth, which could have major
implications for companies as the market continues to be
competitive. In fact, we saw the frst signs of that disconnect
when employees also told us last year that salary is the key
factor when considering a new job and would be their main
motivation to move roles.
Paying attention to retention
Currently, how condent are you about retaining your best people?
Very condent
Condent
Concerned Neither condent
nor concerned
Very concerned
8.7% 43.5% 30.4% 13.0% 4.4%
How likely are you to look for a new role in the next 12 months? US employee perspective 2013
Extremely likely
Likely
Unlikely
Extremely
unlikely
With almost four ffths (79.1%) of US pharma, biotech and
medical devices employees saying they would be willing to
leave their current job for the right opportunity, retention has
the potential to become a real issue for companies across the
whole of the US. This is particularly true when we consider that
salary and promotion prospects do not appear to be high on
the agendas of the companies we spoke to, even though salary
remains the number one factor motivating 61.5% of employees to
move roles, followed closely by promotion opportunities (48.0%).
Even with a backdrop of potential international migration and
people demanding more from their employers, while being
tempted by other companies, its maybe surprising that few
companies we spoke to were concerned (13.0%) or very
concerned (4.4%) about losing their best people. In fact
confdence across all sectors appears high with more than half of
those we spoke to saying they are either confdent (43.5%) or
very confdent (8.7%) about retaining their top people.
44.4% 2.7% 18.2% 34.8%
27
Why are you condent about retaining your best people?
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
We offer
competitive
salaries/fnancial
packages
We offer good
promotion
prospects
We offer good
international
relocation
opportunities
We offer
competitive
fexible benefts
/work-life
balance
We offer good
training and
development
opportunities
We are an
employer of
choice
Our staff churn
levels are low
We have high
employee
satisfaction
levels
%
Show them the money?
For some organizations confdence around retention was
based on factors not associated with fnancial recompense,
with training and development being almost as critical to their
organization (53.4%) as salaries (55.3%); and fexible benefts
and work/life balance (48.5%) instilling confdence their retention
policies were focused in the right areas.
When we look back 12 months to understand if this confdence is
well-placed, we see that employees are increasingly demanding
more from their employers and although salary and progression
were the main motivations of employees, the rise of Gen-Y
shows increasing demand for a fexible and personal
approach to an employers offering. This means that very
few elements of the employee contract were deemed as
unimportant, making salary (96.0%), career progression
(79.3%), location (80.0%), fexible working (71.5%), bonuses
(56.2%) and the scope of the role on offer (79.3%) either
important or very important to their decision-making.
55.3
40.8
20.4
48.5 48.5
25.2
45.6
53.4
There was a great deal of recognition from our San Francisco
panel that employers need to meet with their high potential
staff to develop and shape individual packages that are designed
to meet their needs and ambitions. Many accepted this could
include not just pay rises but also stocks, bonuses, fexible
working, training programmes, career planning support and
mentoring programmes.
One of our panel accepted that employees are looking for
positions that ft in with their lifestyle and as an industry many
people do not recognize this and need to do more to make
sure they adapt to the needs of their employees and industry
as a whole if they are to remain competitive and relevant to the
markets they operate in.
Ironically, when we ask employers why retention is a potential
concern most agreed that competition for talent has increased
(53.9%) and as a result so has the likelihood of their best people
leaving. Competition inevitably has its effect on supply and
demand of talent and if companies refuse to countenance this
and their employees could get a better salary elsewhere, then
theres a real threat of talent going where the money is.
Salary
Location
Flexible working
Beneft package
Bonus
Opportunities for career progression
Company culture
Scope of role/projects
Job security
*Based on respondents who considered factor
important or very important.
96.0%
80.0%
71.5%
62.1%
56.3%
80.4%
75.5%
79.3%
69.1%
How important are the following factors when looking for a new role? US employee perspective 2013
29
According to our panel this is being recognized by over a third
of employers (38.5%) who agreed that retention is an issue
because they feel they cant compete with salaries/benefts
offered elsewhere. We explored this subject at our roundtables
and its telling that some of the people we spoke to agreed they
were already aware of the salary factor and were constantly
benchmarking and adjusting salaries to be able to compete.
Others however felt that salary was a great way to get people
into an organization, while others felt different benefts, not
necessarily linked to salary but with a fnancial and non-fnancial
contribution, were the basis for retaining their best people. Some
also agreed they could never compete on salary alone and
needed to be much more creative in their approach to retention.
Indeed if we look at why some organizations are concerned
about retention we can see that employers are already
losing a lot of their people (30.8%), employee morale is low
(41.0%) and has the potential to introduce mass exodus and
employees are already moving to the competition (33.3%).
So the frst signs of market pressure causing retention issues
are already starting to show and this can only increase as the
market fghts for talent and talent has the opportunity to be
much more selective.
Why are you concerned about retaining your best people?
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
30.8
53.9
38.5
41.0
33.3
5.1
25.6 25.6
W
e
v
e

l
o
s
t

a

l
o
t

o
f

p
e
o
p
l
e

a
l
r
e
a
d
y
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

t
a
l
e
n
t

h
a
s

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
C
a
n
t

c
o
m
p
e
t
e

w
i
t
h

s
a
l
a
r
i
e
s
/
b
e
n
e
f
t
s

o
f
f
e
r
e
d

e
l
s
e
w
h
e
r
e
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e

m
o
r
a
l
e

i
s

l
o
w
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s

a
r
e

m
o
v
i
n
g

t
o

c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s

a
r
e

r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
n
g

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
W
e

d
o
n
t

o
f
f
e
r

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s

l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m

c
a
r
e
e
r

o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
W
e

d
o
n
t

h
a
v
e

a

r
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

p
o
l
i
c
y
/
i
t
s

l
o
w

o
n

o
u
r

a
g
e
n
d
a
%
Long-term condence
Considering that employers are seeing competition for talent
putting pressure on their staffng and retention activity, and
candidates are still motivated to move if their needs are not met,
we asked whether retention has the potential to be a concern
in the future. Even though the people we spoke to are confdent
they are doing the right things to retain their people, still over
half of our panel said they were concerned about retaining their
people in the future (56.5%) and another quarter thought this
had the potential be an issue (26.1%). In fact less than a ffth of
respondents (17.4%) said they had no concerns about retention
in the future.
If we consider what people are saying now about retention and
what they think might happen in the future then it seems many of
the people we spoke to are reasonably confdent in their ability
to retain people for the short term, but lack confdence that their
retention strategies are able to bear close scrutiny and could be
put under pressure as demand and supply continue to compete.
When we asked our panel if retention is more of an issue than it
was 12 months ago we can already see a pattern emerging, with
60.9% of people saying they have to work harder to retain their
staff.
Do you think retention may be a concern in the future?
15.3
26.1%
Yes
No
Maybe
56.5%
17.4%
Why the future concern?
Stepping forward into 2015 it seems that the confdence
companies currently share is likely to fall by the wayside. Again
the confdence around salaries is likely to have disappeared with
almost a third of respondents (31.6%) saying their biggest future
challenge will be based around competition for talent driven by
increasingly attractive fnancial packages offered elsewhere. We
have already seen an impetus change in what companies are
doing to reduce churn.
Although companies have suggested they are happy with their
pay levels and have not considered this to be a way to reduce
churn, they are already taking a much more focused approach
as they become nervous about losing people. Over a third of our
panel (34.8%) said that they are now constantly benchmarking
their salary/benefts packages to ensure they remain competitive.
When we look further into the question of retention its hardly
surprising that three quarters of people (73.7%) are concerned
about retaining their best people. What is surprising though is
that over a quarter of our panel (26.3%) are concerned they
could be retaining the wrong people.
Its been widely acknowledged that companies can sacrifce
performance by focusing on retaining the wrong people as
theyre under the false impression that, given enough time and
energy, they can fx weaknesses when they should be focusing
on exploiting strengths.
Panel members at our roundtables recognized the traits a
person was hired for in the frst place do not disappear overnight
and companies of all shapes and sizes need to be much more
fexible and agile in how they manage people who are seemingly
underperforming. In fact the medical devices panellists that
previously said they focused on recruiting people not for
specifc jobs, found retaining the wrong people is less of an
issue for them. They acknowledged that skills can be nurtured
and performance managed, but personality, mindset and
commitment are part of nature and are, as such, priceless.
If we fnd someone that has that spark, that desire and that
will-to-win, then usually they will be a great asset to our
company. Sometimes they might have to move jobs internally to
fnd their ft, but ultimately we have the kind of person that will
work for us and the rest comes later.
31
Do you think retention may be a concern in the future? What do you anticipate your biggest areas of concern around retention will be?
As organizations across the pharma, biotech and medical
devices sectors face an increasingly competitive environment,
with factors such as global expansion, mergers & acquisitions
and the patent cliff still impacting the industry, its clear that the
next few years have the potential to be challenging.
The growing expectations of employees, combined with
competition for international talent and perceived skills shortages
means a strong employer proposition is more important than ever
before if organizations are to compete and build an effective
workforce for the future. However, in a constantly evolving
market only time will tell which organizations are able to
adapt their offering accordingly and develop effective
staffng and retention strategies, and which organizations
will struggle in the months and years to come.
Conclusion
73.7%
26.3%
31.6%
15.8%
47.4%
Keeping the wrong people
Low morale
Competition for talent - based on fnancial packages
Competition for talent - based on culture, fexible benefts etc.
Retaining the best people
32 The key to recruiting & retaining a competitive workforce
Salary and market trends
As expansion, mergers, acquisitions and competition continue to
affect the pharma, biotech and medical devices sectors we examine
the impact on staffng, retention and salaries. Providing detailed salary
and contract rates, together with the latest industry insight, we explore
the market trends within core disciplines.
Salary and contract rates quoted are based on Reals placement
data over the previous 12 months, together with the predictions from
our staffng specialists across the US. Permanent salaries quoted
are gross average annual salaries, excluding bonuses and benefts
and contractor rates are quoted on an average hourly rate. The
salary rates quoted are indicative of the market only and salaries will
vary depending on a companys size, location, the sector and an
employees qualifcations, experience and responsibilities.
With the global outsourcing market continuing to grow at speed,
the US market has followed suit with a number of organizations
outsourcing all or part of their clinical operations functions.
As a result we have seen an increasing number of roles arise
within both CROs and other third party suppliers, although we
see small in-house teams emerging as they look to manage the
outsourcing process.
Experienced Clinical Research Associates (CRAs) remain in
high demand, with the number of CRA jobs continuing to rise
signifcantly month on month. With a limited talent pool and
strong competition from both the domestic and international
markets, we are therefore seeing salaries and rates being driven
up as a result.
Across the pharma & biotech sector the continued wave
of mergers and acquisitions, coupled with many pharma
organizations moving into diagnostics has created new
opportunities. As the focus shifts to a more preventative
approach to healthcare we are seeing more demand for
specialists with experience of early stage development projects.
People with this experience are therefore able to command a
premium.
Employees continue to display increasing confdence in the job
market and a strong willingness to move roles is evident which
has meant weve seen more movement between organizations
over the past 6 months across much of the US. That being said,
organizations on the West Coast have a smaller talent pool to
draw from, particularly for highly sought after specialists such as
CRAs, Clinical Trial Managers and Clinical Project Managers who
remain drawn to the broader roles offered at the big pharmas and
CROs based on the East Coast.
Rather than trying to compete on salary alone we have seen
organizations on the West Coast look to compete for talent by
tailoring their employer proposition. The lifestyle of the West
Coast, including the work/life balance and innovative approach
remain key draws for professionals across the discipline.
On the whole employers are also focused on retaining their best
people in a highly competitive market. Hiring organizations are
therefore reviewing the scope of the roles on offer and their full
offering in order to attract talent from across the sector.
Salaries continue to rise though as some organizations rely
on their fnancial packages to secure new talent.
Despite a limited talent pool and ferce competition,
organizations remain reluctant to look internationally for
clinical operations talent and the focus remains very much
on the domestic market. Instead organizations are casting
their nets wider to attract talent from across the US and are
adapting a more fexible approach to their hiring criteria.
Clinical Operations
Job title *Permanent ($) *Contract ($)
Clinical Operations Manager 121,667 95
Clinical Project Director 143,333 117
Clinical Project Manager 120,000 92
Clinical Research Associate I 73,333 47
Clinical Research Associate II 82,667 63
Clinical Research Director 146,667 110
Clinical Research/Study Manager 123,333 90
Clinical Trial Administrator 65,000 35
Clinical Trial Co-ordinator 71,667 38
Clinical Trials Manager 125,000 70
Feasibility Manager 110,000 67
Senior Clinical Operations Director 161,667 133
Senior Clinical Project Manager 123,333 107
Senior Clinical Research Associate 95,000 83
*Permanent
Gross average annual salary,
excluding bonus and benefts.
*Contract
Average hourly rate.
Salary and contract rates quoted are indicative of the market only and will vary depending on a companys size,
location, the sector and an employees qualications, experience and responsibilities.
35
*Permanent
*Contract
Research & Development
Following a period of restructures and organizational change we
are now seeing organizations focusing once more on developing
their R&D functions. This is particularly evident within the medical
devices sector where frms are looking to bring through a pipeline
of new innovative products. As a result we are seeing high demand
across the discipline, with software and product engineers highly
sought after.
With a limited number of engineers available there has been ferce
competition for talent, which in turn has driven up salaries. Firms
have also been forced to cast their net wider and are looking for
talent across the breadth of the US. Relocation packages are
therefore becoming key as frms look to bring on talent from other
areas. In addition to rising salaries, we are also seeing an increase
in sign-on bonuses.
The innovative nature of medical devices is proving attractive
to many people though and organizations are starting to
beneft from an infux of talent from other sectors. For those
organizations open to taking on people with a background
outside medical devices there is therefore an expanding pool of
talent from which to draw from.
Across the pharma & biotech sector demand for R&D
specialists is also rising. Increasingly stringent FDA
regulations and a number of audits have impacted the
discipline and as a result we have seen more process driven
R&D roles. Experienced specialists used to working within
these parameters are therefore in demand.
Project based work is driving demand for contractors, and
whilst there is still high demand for people on a permanent
basis there is increasing dependence on contractors as
employers look to bring on specialist skills for projects.
We have started to see more movement between organizations
as employees who have previously opted to stay in their
current roles for job security are now feeling more confdent
about the market and are coming to the realization they may
need to move to secure higher salaries. However, with some
organizations restricted by rigid salary bandings employers are
looking at more fexible options such as sign-on bonuses and
stock options to bring packages in line with the market rate.
C
l
i
n
i
c
a
l

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

&

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

Analytical Chemist 63,333 50
Applications Scientist 57,667 48
Chief Medical Offcer 328,333 167
Chief Scientifc Offcer 328,333 173
Clinical Scientist 71,667 41
Director of Therapy 113,333 68
Drug Discovery Project Leader 47,333 48
Drug Discovery Scientist 103,000 56
Engineering Planner 66,000 44
Epidemiologist 82,000 64
Formulation Scientist 76,333 43
Medical Expert 80,667 60
Principal Scientist 90,333 58
Project Assistant 40,667 26
Project Manager: R&D 98,333 60
R&D Director 148,333 96
R&D Manager 110,000 62
Scientifc Operations Director 166,667 112
Scientist 71,667 42
Senior Research Physician 73,333 60
Senior Study Co-ordinator 58,333 33
Study Manager 68,333 46
Technical Operations Director 128,667 83
Trial Co-ordinator 48,333 33
Upstream Scientist 81,000 47
Demand for quality assurance professionals has continued to
rise across both the pharma & biotech and the medical devices
sectors. This growth has been driven largely by the increasing
number of audits taking place which has led organizations to
tighten their controls in this area. Similarly we are seeing the
revised Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) regulations also
driving levels of demand across pharma organizations.
The new regulations seen across all sectors, coupled with
the increasing number of companies focused on combination
products, has increased the demand for versatile and well
rounded quality professionals to keep up with the changing trends.
With distinct differences in the regulations between medical
devices and drugs, professionals with experience spanning both
areas are also highly sought after.
With a relatively large pool of available talent, organizations are
not competing for talent to the same extent we have seen across
other disciplines. However, we still see strong competition for the
most senior talent, most of whom are secure in their roles and not
actively looking for new opportunities. As a result we are seeing
employers willing to pay a premium to attract people at this high
level. In contrast, at the mid to lower levels, where talent is more
available, salaries have stabilized.
Employees continue to seek roles with more job security and as
a result the big pharmas present an attractive option to many
people. This means smaller organizations have had to adapt their
offering to compete for talent, which is evident by the number
of frms now reviewing the scope of the roles on offer, together
with job titles, whilst ensuring their fnancial packages are in-line
with the industry. That being said, within medical devices we are
starting to see a new wave of employees who are more willing to
take risks and join start-ups, or to take on contract roles with the
hope of them later moving to a permanent basis.
The outsourcing trend has continued across the US, with a
number of frms turning to CROs to manage either all, or part of
their quality assurance function. This is creating a number of new
roles within CROs but it is also leading to demand for in-house
teams to manage the outsourcing process. Following a series
of FDA audits organizations remain cautious, resulting in greater
reliance in some areas on senior in-house managers to oversee
the QA function, rather than to completely hand over responsibility
to third party providers. This is driving demand at the senior level.
The preference remains for permanent hires as organizations look
to build up their QA function for the long-term. However, we are
seeing audits drive demand for contractors as some organizations
look to bring in people to rectify potential issues on a project
basis.
Quality Assurance
Strong competition
for senior talent has meant
employers are willing to pay
a premium to attract people
at this level.
37
Compliance Manager 114,333 77
Electrical Engineer 98,000 70
Engineer 104,000 67
Hardware Engineer 93,333 62
Head of Compliance 130,000 77
Head of Procurement 106,333 83
Head of Quality Assurance 210,000 97
Head of Quality Control 156,667 85
Manufacturing Quality Engineer 71,667 61
Product Quality Engineer 112,000 54
Quality Assurance Engineer 91,667 57
Quality Assurance Manager 121,667 75
Quality Assurance Offcer 82,667 48
Quality Assurance Technician 67,667 33
Quality Auditor 90,000 45
Quality Consultant 88,000 92
Quality Control Analyst 61,667 36
Quality Control Manager 106,667 58
Quality Control Supervisor 91,667 40
Quality Engineer 96,667 71
Quality Specialist 76,667 48
Senior Quality Specialist 83,333 58
Senior Software Engineer 76,667 67
Software Engineer 93,333 61
Validation Consultant 109,000 78
Validation Engineer 85,000 58
VP: Validation 213,333 135
*Permanent
*Contract
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e

Tightening drug safety regulations and a pipeline of pharma and
biotech products have continued to drive the need for experienced
regulatory affairs professionals within the pharma & biotech
sector. Similarly a series of product scares and resulting product
recalls have also put increasing pressure on medical devices
organizations, which has led to a number of employers building
their regulatory affairs teams further as the bar for compliance
standards has been raised.
This rise in demand for talent has therefore been seen across
both the pharma & biotech and the medical devices sector. The
latter has seen the implementation of new legislations which some
consider have brought it more in-line with the pharma sector. This
can, in certain circumstances, see medical devices organizations
increasingly seeking regulatory affairs specialists with a pharma
background who can bring transferable skills to their business.
A relatively limited talent pool within the pharma & biotech sector
has meant that competition for the best talent has remained strong,
with organizations increasingly willing to raise salaries in order to
secure talent. With employers seeking very specifc experience in
certain areas, candidates who can successfully demonstrate such
relevant expertise have been able to command a premium.
Regulatory writers remain in particular demand across the pharma
& biotech sector and with an increasing number of organizations
outsourcing large projects to CROs we have seen signifcant
demand for writers in this area. That being said though there are
still in-house writing opportunities as some organizations look to
retain skill sets within their organization for the long-term.
There is also a split between the talent sought by CROs and the
big pharma organizations and weve seen CROs willing to take
on more junior regulatory writers in order to keep headcount
costs lower and to secure talent with the potential to stay with the
organization for a few years. CROs are also continuing to look for
specialists who can demonstrate client focused skills and who are
energetic and commercially minded.
Across the medical devices sector, as global regulatory
submissions experience becomes increasingly crucial, those
specialists with experience in this area are increasingly sought
after and this demand is pushing salaries up. The medical device
tax has also led to a more cautious approach by many new start-
up organizations. As a result, they are increasingly looking for
experienced talent to bring on board. Those companies developing
high-risk products, generally class II devices requiring PMA
submissions to get to market, have particularly high demands
and are driving the demand for regulatory affairs professionals
with PMA submissions experience. However, with a small pool of
available talent with this experience, competition is ferce.
As weve seen across the wider pharma, biotech and medical
devices sectors, employee demands and expectations have
continued to rise, and employees across regulatory affairs are no
different. Flexible and working from home opportunities are high
on the agenda for many employees within pharma & biotech and
we are seeing employers increasingly offer more fexibility in this
area in order to bring new talent on board. In contrast though,
working from home remains a rare perk within medical devices
organizations. Across both sectors though we see organizations
offering alternative benefts such as extended vacation, stock
options, relocation assistance and good sign-on bonuses as they
look to compete for talent.
Local talent remains in limited supply and as weve seen across
many disciplines, organizations look nationwide for the right talent,
at both a junior and experienced level. Despite high demand which
has driven up salaries for specifc roles, on the whole salaries are
relatively stable, although we continue to see regional variations.
Permanent employees remain in higher demand, although senior
consultants are becoming more embedded across the regulatory
affairs function.
Regulatory Afairs
Head of Regulatory Affairs 203,333 115
Regulatory Affairs Associate 80,000 43
Regulatory Affairs Director 176,667 110
Regulatory Affairs Manager 131,667 93
Regulatory Affairs Pharmacist 108,333 77
Regulatory Affairs Specialist 88,667 56
Regulatory Affairs Writer 99,167 72
VP: Regulatory Affairs 235,000 172
*Permanent
*Contract
39
*Permanent
*Contract
With a number of health scares pushing drug safety to the centre
of many pharma & biotechs agendas, demand has continued
to rise for pharmacovigilance and drug safety specialists. Firms
are increasingly looking to embed pharmacovigilance into the
development phase, and those professionals with early stage
development experience are therefore increasingly sought after.
As weve seen in quality assurance FDA audits are driving
project based demand and we are seeing a rise in demand for
contractors to address potential issues. Organizations are also
looking to the longer term though and we see an increasing
tendency for employers to bring on board permanent talent that
can address future challenges. With international regulations
becoming fundamental as organizations look to release products
on a global scale, specialists with international experience are
particularly sought after and employers are willing to pay a
premium for these skill sets.
A relatively small talent pool has led organizations to look
further afeld for talent and consider being more fexible on their
requirements. Although competition is strong for the best talent,
frms are not overly infating salaries and they have therefore
remained relatively stable across the discipline.
Pharmacovigilance & Drug Safety
A relatively
small talent pool has led
organizations to look
further aeld for talent.
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y

A
f
f
a
i
r
s

P
h
a
r
m
a
c
o
v
i
g
i
l
a
n
c
e

&

D
r
u
g

S
a
f
e
t
y

Non-medic
Associate Director 150,000 100
Director or QPPV 171,667 120
Drug Safety Offcer 130,000 63
Pharmacovigilance Associate 75,000 47
Pharmacovigilance Director 187,667 120
Pharmacovigilance Manager 116,333 74
Pharmacovigilance Offcer 123,333 70
Pharmacovigilance Senior Manager 130,667 85
Medic
Global Safety Physician 141,000 87
Medical QPPV or Medical Director 200,000 120
Pharmacovigilance Physician 141,667 75
Pharmacovigilance Senior Physician 163,333 83
Medical Afairs
There has been slow and steady growth across the medical
affairs discipline, as the pipeline of new products generated off
the back the patent cliff begin to come through. Demand for
medical affairs specialists is therefore rising. Combined with a
limited talent pool this is leading to strong competition for the
best talent, which in turn is putting pressure on salaries.
Medical advisors with clinical experience are in particular
demand. However, we have seen a cautious approach from
employees looking to move roles, with many people setting
high criteria when looking for new roles. Salaries have remained
stable on the whole but we have seen some organizations
review their offering, including evaluating the scope of roles.
Across the medical devices sector is it medical affairs
specialists with a technical background that are proving the
most highly sought after, as frms look to build stronger
connections between medical affairs and product development
functions.
Both permanent employees and contractors have seen a
number of new opportunities arise, although the preference
remains for permanent staff.
P
h
a
r
m
a
c
o
v
i
g
i
l
a
n
c
e

&

D
r
u
g

S
a
f
e
t
y
Collaboration Manager 89,667 52
Head of Medical Affairs 293,333 150
Head of Medical Information 183,333 110
Head of Medical Liaison 213,333 110
Medical Affairs Advisor 103,000 62
Medical Affairs Manager 126,667 75
Medical Director 220,000 123
Medical Information 88,333 47
Medical Science Liaison 128,333 90
Scientifc Advisor 98,333 83
Senior Medical Affairs Advisor 136,667 101
Senior Medical Information 109,333 80
*Permanent
*Contract
Strong competition
for the best talent is putting
pressure on salaries.
41
Health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) continues to
be central to the pharma & biotech sector as organizations face
increasing pressure to demonstrate the potential long-term value
of new and existing drugs. Patient reported outcomes (PRO) are
also playing a key role in determining whether new drugs reach
the market and as a result HEOR specialists are becoming even
more highly sought after as frms seek the skills to bring new
products to market quickly and effectively, whilst maintaining and
even growing their current market share.
With the success of new products hinging on the ability to bring
these to market in a timely manner investment is high across
HEOR. PRO specialists, who are in limited supply, are proving
critical to many organizations and are therefore able to command
a premium. Competition for this talent is then driving salaries up
even further. Some frms are looking at their full package when
looking to attract people, including the job titles and promotion
routes on offer. With many promotions being expedited though
job titles have become skewed to some extent and specialists
are therefore advised to evaluate new opportunities on the full
job scope on offer, rather than job title alone.
With a limited domestic talent pool and organizations
facing increasingly stringent global regulations, international
experience is highly sought after. This has led some
organizations to look internationally for talent and in some
cases establish global hubs as they look to launch products
into new territories.
As employers look further afeld to bring in the required
talent they are also turning to specialists in other disciplines.
For example, we are seeing senior professionals with a
commercial or medical affairs background transitioning into
HEOR roles. As talent moves around more and expectations
rise we are also seeing salaries being driven up. And with
people required at all stages; from phase II trials, through to
product launches and post-evaluation there is no shortage
of demand putting specialists in this area in an enviable
position.
The medical devices sector is also beginning to see similar
levels of demand as regulations place pressure on
organizations. Employers are therefore fnding they need
to compete for the best talent and salaries are therefore
refecting the competitiveness of the market.
P
h
a
r
m
a
c
o
v
i
g
i
l
a
n
c
e

&

D
r
u
g

S
a
f
e
t
y
Director of Health Economics 178,333 200
Director of Market Access 166,667 140
Head of Health Economics and Market Access 198,333 180
Health Economics Account Manager 125,000 84
Health Economics Associate 86,667 51
Health Economics Manager 110,000 68
Health Economics Modeler 85,000 50
Health Economist 131,667 79
HEOR Consultant 112,667 80
Market Access Consultant 90,333 57
Market Access Manager 92,333 68
Market Information Analyst 82,667 44
Senior Health Economist 138,333 88
*Permanent
*Contract
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
M
e
d
i
c
a
l

A
f
f
a
i
r
s

H
e
a
l
t
h

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s

&

O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
Biometrics
The outsourcing trend seen in previous years has continued to
build momentum with many pharma and biotech organizations
readily outsourcing their biometrics functions to CROs,
specifcally within the US and further afeld in the Asia Pac
region. This trend has been driven by the need to streamline cost
effciencies and to be able to scale the biometrics function.
Although outsourcing has reduced costs for many organizations,
it has also affected the quality of the work produced. The close of
2013 saw a change for many frms, where there was an increased
effort to bring work in-house once again. As a result, biometrics
remains a key growth area and we have seen rising demand for
biometrics professionals across the US. Due to tightening FDA
regulations anticipated to come into force by 2017, organizations
continue to face increasing pressure to bolster their workforce
in this area to prepare for the changes ahead. Competition
therefore remains ferce for Statistical Programmers with CDISC
and submission experience, skill sets that are able to command
a premium.
As a result of the increasing demand for professionals within
the biometrics space, the expectations and demands of such
employees are rising. This has subsequently impacted employers
as they look to compete for the best talent. When we look at
salaries across the industry, big pharma companies continue to
pay on average 10% more than SMEs and CROs. Whilst some
organizations are raising salaries in order to secure talent, others
are looking at their full offering and adapting this instead.
There is increasing emphasis on job titles and remote fexibility
as employees directly link these to their opportunities for career
progression and the scope of their role. Whilst CROs are often
more fexible with home working capability, pharma organizations
generally remain strict in their structures. Despite the fact that the
increased fexibility offered by CROs has become an attractive
option for many workers, in-house roles continue to remain the
preference of many employees.
Whilst biostatistics functions are increasingly being outsourced,
there is still ongoing demand for statisticians within pharma
companies as they look for in-house resources to oversee the
programming function. We are also seeing some organizations
move statisticians to work cross-functionally with clinicians,
which is creating more opportunities for career development. As
demand continues to rise, employers appear to have become
increasingly aware of the threat of competition and we have
seen more counter offers and a general decline in the number
of employees entering the job market. This is due to employers
strengthening their existing offering through salary increases and
stock options in many cases.
This shortage of talent, particularly for biostatisticians, has led
some CROs to look internationally for talent. In the case of the
larger global CROs, we have also seen internal talent transfer
from offces overseas. However, this international movement
has been restricted mostly to the CROs, as many of the pharma
companies have remained reluctant to draw on international
talent, choosing instead to review their offering and compete for
local talent.
For the most part, salaries have remained stable. As demand
continues to grow and the available talent pool is under
increasing pressure, we expect salaries to rise in order to remain
competitive in recruiting top talent.
Analyst 84,167 43
BI Analyst 88,278 48
Clinical Data Co-ordinator 67,667 47
Clinical Data Manager 85,000 60
Data Manager 85,000 62
Lead Data Manager 86,667 80
Market Analyst 81,667 53
Programmer 96,667 62
Senior Data Manager 110,000 75
Senior Programmer 116,667 82
Senior Statistician 120,000 102
Statistician 69,333 80
VP: Statistics & informatics 225,000 135
*Permanent
*Contract
43
As weve seen across Europe, traditional sales forces are in
decline across the US pharma & biotech and medical devices
sectors as organizations shift towards an account led approach.
Whilst this means demand is no longer as high for sales
representatives, we have seen a rise in demand for experienced
key account managers as frms look to build stronger
relationships with their client base. Similarly, business developers
are becoming increasingly sought after.
With less pure sales opportunities we have seen some sales
professionals retraining to move into the marketing discipline,
particularly agency side where a commercial and sales
background can prove to be a strong asset. Used to travelling
weve also seen sales professionals willing to commute further
afeld to secure roles, without the employer needing to invest
in costly relocation packages. For some organizations this has
therefore opened up a much wider pool of talent.
Digital marketing continues to be an area of growth and with
a relatively small pool of talent in this area competition is
intensifying for the best talent. As a result organizations are
looking to attract talent based on the fnancial packages on
offer and we have seen salaries rise as a result, however, for
those organizations unable to compete on salary we have
seen a move to hire more junior level people, with frms
putting in place development plans.
Senior marketers remain the preference of many
organizations, and frms are often taking on permanent hires
rather than incurring the additional costs associated with
contractors on long-term contracts. Instead contractors are
being used at a lower level to plug short-term project
demands.
Account Manager 90,667 53
Business Developer 102,667 63
Commercial Director 133,000 77
Communications & PR Manager 92,000 54
Head of Marketing 170,000 92
Head of Sales 146,667 92
Head of Sales & Marketing 171,667 96
Insight Director 126,667 81
Junior Account Manager 61,667 36
Market Analyst 78,333 39
Marketing Communications Manager 85,000 48
Marketing Director 140,000 90
Marketing Executive 88,333 73
Marketing Manager 106,333 64
Online Marketing Manager 101,000 59
Product Marketing Manager 100,333 60
Sales & Marketing Manager 110,667 66
Sales Manager 97,667 63
Sales/Field Representative 78,333 41
*Permanent
*Contract
Sales & Marketing
B
i
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
s

S
a
l
e
s

&

M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g

As we saw last year we have seen reduced demand across the
continuing medical education (CME) sector, this has been a result
of the reduction in budgets seen across the pharma & biotech
sector, as well as continued changes in the climate for funding
and sponsorship. Organizations are also being tasked with being
more transparent about pay and expenditure in this area which has
restricted activity to some degree.
The digital communications space has continued to grow
though and there has therefore been a rise in demand for digital
communications experts, as well as those with experience in
integrated communications. As frms look to build their strategic
capabilities and client service functions, strong account and
client services professionals are also particularly sought after.
Increasingly there is a high demand, but a short supply of proven
copywriters, creatives, and art directors. In all of these instances,
the limited talent pool means employee expectations are higher
than normal, and the packages offered by companies are being
driven up as they compete for the top talent.

As ever, the pharma & biotech industry continues to outsource
the majority of its medical communication functions to third
party agencies, and competition between agencies pitching for
the same business remains ferce. RFPs and pitches are being
responded to and fought hard; largely over cost, but also over
timely delivery, and the quality of the agencys work. As a result
hiring often needs to happen very quickly and often in quick
response to new business wins, making it crucial that new hires
need to be of the right quality, and within budget.
We are seeing a great deal of movement between agencies as
people seek pay rises, wider scope of roles, and better job titles.
There is also now less of a clearly defned split between agencies
working in specifc sectors, such as pharma & biotech and medical
devices, as some industry consolidation has occurred.
Some capabilities have also been brought back in-house, with
many agencies now offering more of a one-stop-shop solution.
Previously services such as CME, promotional medical education,
publications, healthcare advertising, digital solutions, creative
services and sales training were more split-out. Whilst people are
moving between agencies more than ever before, employees and
skill-sets are being seen as more and more transferable,
which in turn is creating greater opportunities for people to
move internally.
In such a volatile and changing environment, and with
increasingly high expectations and demands from employers,
medical communications specialists are showing a preference
towards companies that can offer greater stability, and to
those agencies that they perceive to offer a better work/life
balance. Additionally, where some employees are able to
cross over into the non-agency industry side (e.g. those
sitting within publications, medical affairs, or marketing
groups), there continues to be a strong fnancial pull, as
these roles tend to pay more, and offer better packages and
bonuses, relative to agencies.
As is the tendency within medical communications agencies,
where business and demand is very much dependent on key
accounts, we are also seeing people move in line with project
demand. As a result many employers are now taking measures
to retain their top account people, and their key scientifc staff,
by offering tempting counter offers at the point of resignation.
Weve also seen some agencies adapt job titles in a bid to
keep their top talent.
In terms of hiring, the preference remains for on-boarding
experienced people, with commercial backgrounds and
agencies remaining reluctant to take on people at a junior
level, or those with just academic, non-commercial
backgrounds, preferring instead to compete for talent that
can hit the ground running. Where necessary organizations
are therefore prepared to use competitive and creative salaries,
together with fexible work arrangements to attract talent.
On the whole permanent, full-time hires remain the preference
of most employers as they look to build strong client facing
teams that can align their skills with their clients needs for
the long-term. There is still a reliance on freelancers
(particularly so for content work, utilizing contracted medical
writers) to plug talent short falls and deliver projects during
times of peak activity.
Medical Communications
Account Director 113,667 73
Account Executive 68,333 43
Account Manager 79,667 54
Content Development Manager 125,000 60
Copywriter 84,333 44
Medical Editor 79,000 38
Medical Information Offcer 78,333 42
Medical Writer 100,667 104
Publisher 89,000 73
*Permanent
*Contract
45
Organizations across the US face continued pressure to
improve cost effciency and improve productivity. As a result
we have seen frms review their operations functions and either
consolidate parts of the process or outsource elements. This
rise in outsourcing has led to an increasingly complex supply
chain which in turn has driven demand for supply chain and
logistics specialists with experience of managing highly complex
functions.
As frms look to integrate international operations, demand for
international talent has also grown. Similarly the revision of the
Good Distribution Practice (GDP) guidelines has resulted in
higher demand for GDP specialists. A limited pool of talent has
driven up salaries in this area.
On the whole salaries have remained stable across the
operations function, with demand split across the permanent
and contract market.
Operations
M
e
d
i
c
a
l

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

Assistant Director 160,000 58
Associate Director of ICT 170,000 78
Controller 76,667 38
General Manager 316,667 158
Head of Pharmaceuticals 200,000 100
Information Services Manager 92,000 52
IT Manager 110,000 53
Logistics Manager 86,333 43
Material Planner 59,333 35
Operations Director 140,333 75
Operations Manager 112,000 55
Operations Technician 62,000 27
Pharmaceutical Process Technician 56,667 28
Pharmacy Technician 44,667 22
Production Supervisor 57,000 32
Production Technician 45,000 25
Programme Director 156,667 72
Software Engineer 91,333 57
Supply Chain Manager 104,000 48
Technical Support Specialist 80,000 51
*Permanent
*Contract
As rms look
to integrate international
operations, demand for
international talent has
also grown.
To fnd your local offce and contact one of our dedicated
staffng specialists visit www.realstafng.com/contactus
Or to access the latest sector news, discover how weve
helped organizations and professionals meet their staffng
challenges head on, or read our latest industry reports and
staffng and career guides visit www.realstafng.com
For our latest updates follow us on:
Our reports

This report is part of Reals dedication to supporting our
partners and delivering market-leading staffng solutions.
As one of the worlds leading staffng consultancies we pride
ourselves on being a key staffng partner for professionals
and organizations across the pharma, biotech and medical
devices sectors.
Our series of reports offer best practice advice and insight
to help you secure your next job or make business critical
decisions that will enable your company to grow and help
you manage your staffng challenges whatever they might be.
Contact us
Real Staffng Group 2014. All rights reserved. Real accepts no liability
for the accuracy of the contents or the opinions expressed herein.
47
www.realstafng.com

Recruiting & Retaining A Competitive Workforce: Pharma, Biotech and Medical Devices

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Recruiting & Retaining A Competitive Workforce: Pharma, Biotech and Medical Devices

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1 Recruiting & retaining a competitive workforce

Spotlight on: US employers 2014

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen