By: Natalie Johnson
The leadership team assembled in a biotech company’s earliest stages determines almost everything that follows: the culture that takes hold, the quality of decisions made under pressure, and the clinical programs that either reach patients or stall in development. Most founders approach that process reactively, deferring to board recommendations and defaulting to the most credentialed candidates available.
Peter S. Kaplan, a life sciences executive search professional with decades of experience placing leadership teams across growth-stage biotech companies, has seen where that approach breaks down. “You should be very thoughtful about your first few hires,” Kaplan states, “because those individuals will set the foundation for success or failure. All it takes is one bad apple to spoil the bunch, and that adage is unfortunately true in growth-stage biotech in particular.”
Build Around Trust, Not Credentials
When Kaplan evaluates the leadership teams of the most successful life sciences companies, he finds in great companies it is not surprising that executives have usually worked together before. They chose each other again because prior experience gave them direct evidence of mutual confidence, strong communication, collaboration, and trust under pressure. Founders who defer to board suggestions or gravitate toward brand-name executives sacrifice the most important variable in team building, which is personal conviction about the people they bring in.
“I would advise founders strongly to first select people that they know and trust, that they feel they can work with well and that they have confidence in,” Kaplan notes, “rather than bring in someone who’s a brand name or an unknown player they’re not comfortable with.” The first hires shape the culture, set the operating norms, and establish the standard every subsequent hire is measured against. In growth-stage biotech, where a single misaligned executive can derail a clinical program, that foundation is everything.
Capital Efficiency Without Starving Leadership
The funding environment of the past 18 months has made milestone-based investment tranches the operating reality for most growth-stage companies. Investors release capital as milestones are demonstrated, which creates genuine pressure to defer senior hires and run lean at the top. Kaplan’s position on that trade-off is direct. “You can’t spend money like you have an endless supply of it; you have to be judicious in the way you deploy capital,” Kaplan acknowledges. “But you need to spend money appropriately to hire the best-in-class people. You need to attract world-class talent to execute on your vision and your business plan. It is a happy balance between being capital efficient and spending what it takes to get the job done successfully.”
The Question That Changes Everything
The most significant shift Kaplan sees in defining the next generation of life sciences team-building is a change in the central hiring question. “The best organizations are not just asking whether this person does the job,” Kaplan reflects. “They’re asking, will this person raise the quality of the team around them?” That reframe changes what matters in a search. References and prior experience working directly with candidates carry more weight than credentials and must-have backgrounds. The evaluation centers on how a person works, whether they build trust, elevate the people around them, and execute the business plan the way the company wants it to be operated.
In a sector where timelines are long, margins for error are narrow, and the stakes are ultimately measured in patient outcomes, that kind of hiring discipline is not simply good management. It is the competitive advantage that separates the companies that build something lasting from the ones that spend their capital correcting leadership mistakes they could have avoided from the start.
Follow Peter S. Kaplan on LinkedIn for more insights on life sciences executive search, leadership team building, and the talent strategies that drive clinical and commercial success.
