How To Get Ready For The Talent Migration Between Pharma And Biotech

By David Ford and John Archer

The life sciences industry is on the brink of a significant shift. Over the next few years, a historic patent cliff will reshape Big Pharma's landscape, triggering waves of talent movement between pharmaceutical and biotech companies. The last time the industry faced a similar challenge was in the early 2010s. Major pharma companies responded with sweeping layoffs, cost-cutting measures, and aggressive acquisitions of smaller biotechs. This time, the stakes are even higher.

As Big Pharma braces for the sales hit — Evaluate Pharma projects nearly $200 billion in lost revenue from expiring patents by 2030 — companies are again reducing headcount and looking to biotech acquisitions to replenish their pipelines. According to a McKinsey report, more than 60% of large pharmaceutical companies expect to increase M&A activity over the next two years. The scale of the transition will be unprecedented.

For executives navigating this shift — whether moving from Big Pharma to biotech or integrating acquired biotech into a larger organization — it’s crucial to understand the distinct operating models, cultural differences, and expectations that define success in each environment.

Between us, we have spent decades hiring and advising leaders at both startups and large enterprises, overseeing major integrations and talent migrations firsthand. We bring different but complementary perspectives to this shift: John, having built a boutique executive recruiting firm specializing in life sciences, and David, having led HR for multiple organizations across the industry, overseeing talent integration and leadership transitions. We’ve seen the talent flow between pharma and biotech in both directions, and we know what works, and what doesn’t.

Key Differences In Pharma And Biotech Leadership

Executives transitioning from Big Pharma to biotech often underestimate how different the operating mindset is. In large pharmaceutical companies, leadership is shaped by a complex web of stakeholder management, regulatory navigation, and long-term strategic planning. Leaders spend much of their time aligning cross-functional teams, managing risk, and ensuring strict financial discipline.

In biotech, the environment is far more hands-on. Executives are expected to take direct ownership of projects, drive execution in resource-constrained settings, and make high-stakes decisions quickly. Unlike in Big Pharma, where decision-making is layered and consensus-driven, biotech leaders often operate with fewer safety nets and must embrace a more entrepreneurial, execution-focused approach.

These differences are particularly relevant now, as industry analysts estimate that biotech funding will continue to tighten. According to PitchBook, biotech venture funding dropped by nearly 30% in 2023, leading to an uptick in biotech closures and acquisitions. (Venture capital data shows there was an uptick in funding last year, but when you dig into the numbers, a disproportionate amount of the money is going to a smaller number of companies that the venture funds themselves have recently conceived of and launched.) This financial pressure is already leading to more restructuring and an increase in executive movement between sectors.

The Overlooked Factor In Career Transitions

Many executives assume that strong technical skills and industry expertise will guarantee success in a new environment. However, cultural fit is often overlooked when determining whether a transition is smooth or disruptive. For example, a prominent pharma executive moving into biotech might struggle in an environment where hierarchy matters less, agility is prized, and decisions must be made with limited data. Likewise, a biotech leader transitioning into Big Pharma may find the bureaucracy and slower decision-making frustrating.

We’ve seen executives thrive when they take the time to truly understand the differences and reflect on their own working styles. Those who struggle often underestimate the different expectations, workflows, and success metrics in the two sectors. Self-awareness is crucial in ensuring a smooth transition.

Our observations stem from years of analyzing leadership success factors, watching talent migrations play out, and managing biotech firm integrations into larger organizations. Our framework for assessing executive transitions is based on industry trends, case studies, and real-world hiring outcomes. Reports from the Biotechnology Innovation Organization indicate that nearly 50% of biotech startups fail within four years, often due to leadership mismatches and operational inefficiencies. Understanding these shifts at a structural level can provide hiring managers and executives with a more precise roadmap for making more informed career decisions.

The Self-Assessment Dilemma

Self-assessment is one of the biggest challenges that executives face when transitioning between Big Pharma and biotech. Leaders often overestimate their adaptability or fail to recognize warning signs indicating a misalignment between their working style and the new environment.

Executives considering a move must ask themselves hard questions, and more importantly, do a thorough self-inventory to identify examples that demonstrate their ability to succeed in an environment with fewer resources.

• Can I succeed in an environment with fewer resources and more personal accountability?
• Am I comfortable working through complex matrix structures and extended decision-making processes?
• Do I thrive on structure and stability, or do I prefer rapid iteration and hands-on leadership?

Thriving In The Evolving Biotech And Pharma Landscape

With biotech and pharma becoming increasingly intertwined, companies and executives must navigate a shifting talent landscape with agility and foresight. Understanding the fundamental differences between these environments — and approaching transitions with a clear-eyed perspective — will be critical to long-term success. Those who take the time to assess their fit, embrace the unique challenges of each sector, and refine their leadership approach accordingly will be best positioned to navigate this new era in coming life sciences talent migration.

About The Authors:

David Ford has been the Chief People Officer of Prothena since March 2024. Before Prothena, he spent more than six years as the CHRO of Intercept Pharmaceuticals and 15 years with Sanofi, in various roles across the U.K., France and the U.S.

John Archer is the founder and Managing Partner of Catalyst Advisors. He has more than 30 years of experience providing executive talent solutions for innovative biopharmaceutical and medical technologies companies.