Birkenstocks or White Shirts - Which is Right for You?

by David G. Jensen, Search Masters International 

One of the topics that comes up regularly in workshops and in private discussions about biotech careers is the difference between large companies and small ones. Those who are employed on the startup company side regularly express their frustration at the turmoil and ask what it is like to be with the big guys. At the same time, people employed in the large pharmaceutical companies wonder what it is like to be swimming along in the currents of the fast-paced biotechnology industry.

I regularly give a presentation at trade shows entitled "Birkenstocks and White Shirts," which addresses the two types of biotech employers and some of their most distinctive differences. My friend George Moyer, Western Regional Manager with B. Braun Biotech, gave me this catchy title one night a few years ago when we were discussing the fact that a recruiter's work will so often change the culture of a company. A typical biotech startup, whose scientists typically wear Birkenstocks sandals to work, will change quite dramatically after the recruitment of a 'white shirt' manager from Merck or Eli Lilly. This has been repeated many times in our young industry.

I'd like to answer some of the questions that have come up at my presentations over the last three years. Most importantly, I want to focus on how these differences between employers will impact certain kinds of people. We'll start off with a general list of traits of each type of company. As in any generalized list, there will be exceptions. It is entirely possible that a smaller biotech company could have a formal career ladder in place, for example. Please let me know if you feel that I have missed some important item which seems to distinguish these two types of employers.

If you are in a struggling startup firm and wondering how long you can handle the ups and downs, read through the White Shirts list and see how many of these you'll find an advantage. Perhaps that craziness of your current company isn't as bad as you thought . . . Alternately, if you've often thought that the rewards of working for a startup organization looked intriguing, read over the Birkenstocks list and see if perhaps that comfy stability you've been experiencing is really something that you'd care to leave behind.

The Birkenstocks Company

• Characterized by a good deal of informality.

• Usually only one career ladder, with senior management at the top and lab technicians at the bottom. 
• There is a lack of formal training for managers; scientists can suddenly find themselves supervising others. 
• Work week averages 55 hours, and employees regularly adjust their schedules to their convenience. 
• Small wins or milestones are celebrated often. 
• Work teams are often multi-disciplined groups working under a matrix project leader. 
• A strong spirit of interdependence is fostered, "we all sink or swim." 
• Financial drivers: salary and a major focus on stock options. 
• Flexibility reigns; the company can change directions on a dime. 
• Oftentimes managers are empowered to make critical decisions, shortening the decision process.

  The stress level, resulting from changes in direction or pressure to meet goals, can be high. 

• Everyone is aware of the tough financial environment and the success/failures of various funding efforts become the entire company's concerns, not just the CEO's. 
• The company culture evolves with the past experiences that each new employee brings to the mix.
  

  The White Shirts Company 

• Characterized by a formal structure. 
• Generally two career ladders, one for scientists and one for managers. 
• Formal training and career development is planned for those who will assume project or people management responsibility. 
• Work week averages 40-45 hours and many employees focus on a 9 to 5 workday. 
• Financial drivers: Salary and a major focus on bonuses. 
• Teams are more likely to be composed of similar sciences, i.e.: a team of analytical chemists working on one piece of a project. 
• The decision process many involve many layers of management. 
• A sense of stability is achieved for the work force due to solid financials and long-term goals. 
• The company culture is set by upper management, and not influenced by the experiences that individual employees bring with them.

   

  
  

  How Do These Differences Impact Your Career?

  Q. I've been working for a small biotechnology company for the last four years. I am very concerned about the effect of the stress level on my family. In each of those four years, there has been some sort of crisis which has put the entire company at risk. This year, it looks like we may merge with another smaller biotech company and there could be a downsizing. Will this ever end, and do you think that I should look for a job with a major pharmaceutical company?

  A. There really isn't an "end" to this sort of stress within the biotech industry. It is in the nature of the companies themselves. These forces include the deadlines imposed by tight funding, the difficulty in managing projects which are continually on a fast track, and the relationships that your company founders have with their lead investors. Many of these issues will be the same regardless of where you might go, except for the larger pharmaceutical company. So, this move would indeed be a logical option for you if you are the sort of person who carries this stress home at night.

  Why do so many people survive at this biotechnology career choice? Generally, it is because they have comfort in the knowledge that their skills will be in demand at any number of companies doing similar work. For a person in a major biotech center like San Francisco or Boston, they'll have two dozen choices without leaving that zip code.

  Q. I have been employed in a major pharmaceutical house for over 12 years. Lately, I have become quite concerned that I am becoming a permanent fixture around here. I see a lot of young people entering our organization and it refreshes me to work with them. I am wondering if my career might be somewhat re-invigorated by changing to a biotech company environment. The people I work most closely with have been here for 20 years or more and I don't like to think of myself as falling into that same rut. What can I do to break free of this trap?

  A. It sounds to me like a bit of self-analysis is in order. Make a list of the things that are most important to you about your job. If you are a scientist, what are those skill areas and techniques that you must be involved in regularly in order to feel challenged? Add to your list all those emotional items which you believe are critical to your personal success. If after reviewing these criteria you believe that you can find the same job satisfaction in a smaller company, than my advice would be to go for it. There are thousands of people from large companies who have found that their skills and abilities can transfer very successfully into biotech.

  Q. I am in a political hot-potato. The department manager I work for is somewhat of a rogue, and his boss and the Director are starting to focus their attention on our group and are making life quite uncomfortable. Everyone is taking sides, and the least of all our worries is getting the job done. I think that a lot of this is happening because large companies are rife with politics, and my next career move is going to be with a smaller biotechnology company. Is this a wise idea?

  A. It might be a fine idea, but you shouldn't make it for the wrong reasons. All companies, regardless of whether they fit the Birkenstocks or White Shirts mold, can have office politics. Although big corporations have long been known to foster political maneuvers, small companies can have similar stress. I remember one firm I was working for in which the "original team" was always at war with the "new management." These situations have little to do with company size.

  Q. Our firm has just had a new company President arrive. We're a mid-sized and publicly held biotech firm, and this fellow comes from Merck. In just ninety days on the job, he has announced some very big changes in the way that we manage our work. Not only are there revised goalposts for our important projects, but there is talk about certain efforts being cut off entirely. In fact, it seems as if the company has undergone a complete culture-shift. I feel like I am adrift in a sea of change, and can't even find comfort at my lab bench any longer. Is this normal?

  A. Your company is going through a transformation that many others have made before you. When a "white shirts" manager comes into a biotech startup environment, quite often they feel most comfortable changing the company to the mold of their former culture. Sometimes this can happen with a department head, and it almost always happens with a new CEO. Although you could use this as a reason to start looking for new employment, my advice is to learn to adapt. Either that or make your career a succession of 2-3 year stays at startup companies by moving out as they begin to blossom into something else. Change is inevitable in any dynamic industry.

  Flexibility Is Your Key To Success

  To work in the biotechnology industry is to work for both White Shirts and Birkenstocks companies. If you stay in one place long enough, the culture will change and you will find that young startup has become a fully-integrated pharmaceutical company.

  There are advantages and disadvantages of both types of companies, large and small. As recruiters, we find that oftentimes the best employees bring experiences with them from the best of both worlds. That's why I believe that being flexible and available to opportunities on either side of this divide can be a very sensible way to manage your career.

  Author:

  Dave Jensen
  500 Foothills South, Suite 2
  Sedona, AZ 86336 

  To reach Search Masters International, contact
  career@searchmastersinternational.com
  (630) 663-9140 

  Contact the author for reprint permission:
  david_g_jensen@yahoo.com 

  Addendum:

  Jack Cohen, VP at Scios, wrote an excellent two-article series in BioPharm which discussed his personal experience in managing the transition from big-company pharmaceutical to the biotechnology industry. Here are Jack's list of the differences that he experienced (excerpted with Jack's permission):

  1) A new technology and a different regulatory path - Many people in pharmaceuticals come from a small molecule and a CDER background. As Jack found, this can be a manageable change.

  2) The risk posed by a tough financial environment - Anyone thinks about this when going to a biotech firm. In Jack's case, it was a mid-sized firm he went to, but the issues were still there in the background. He knew the pluses and the minuses, and weighed them accordingly.

  3) An opportunity to have an increased range of activities with more empowerment - This fellow, like many others, found that when there is less of the "this is the way things are always done" approach, great progress can be made.

  4) A very diverse work force combined with a tremendous amount of employee turnover - In older companies, people tend to fit certain molds. Jack found the unusual personalities and differences between them to be refreshing.

  5) Shorter communications pathways and a simple decision process - Decisions may not be simpler, because sometimes it can be so important to make the right one. But, fewer buy-ins are needed and the barriers to implementation are lower.

  6) It is good to be needed - The theme of Jack Cohen's articles was that it was energizing, and healthy, to be needed. He had a larger impact on his organization and it was very clear that he and his time could be rewarded for their success.

  Reference:

  Career Change Analysis, Parts One and Two, BioPharm Volume 7, Number 2, March 1994, pages 57-58 and BioPharm Volume7, Number 3, April 1994, pages 60-61

  
  
  © Copyright 2000 by David G. Jensen, Sedona, AZ 86336-5085. Contact the author for reprint permission.