The Hidden Cost of Slow Hiring: Why Your 6-Month Recruitment Process is Bleeding Top Life Sciences Talent

Last month, I watched a biotech CEO's face drop during our call. "We finally got approval to make the offer," he said, "but she's already started somewhere else." This wasn't unusual. It was the third time that quarter his company had lost a qualified regulatory affairs director to a competitor while their "thorough process" played out.

What actually happened was pretty predictable. While his team spent 120 days going through internal approvals, organizing six different interview rounds, and trying to get everyone to agree, this talented regulatory affairs director was getting calls from other companies. She waited 10 days for them to make a decision. When nothing happened, she moved on and accepted another offer.

we see this happening everywhere. Companies get so caught up in having the "perfect" hiring process that they forget they're dealing with real people who have bills to pay and careers to build. The research backs this up too. When I looked into it, I found that 92% of candidates just give up on applications that take too long or feel unnecessarily complicated. Another 60% walk away from jobs entirely because the hiring process drags on forever.

Let see from a different angle. While you're busy making sure every box is checked and every stakeholder has their say, your biggest competitors are out there actually hiring people. Good people. Maybe even the same people you're "considering." And honestly, that should worry you more than rushing through a decision.

Looking at the Real Numbers

So I got curious about the actual numbers behind all this, and some of what I found really surprised me. Everyone talks about the global average being 44 days to make a hire, which sounds pretty reasonable when you first hear it. But then I looked at what's actually happening in life sciences, and wow.

Here's what's really happening: executive roles in our industry are taking an average of 120 days to fill. Four whole months. Director positions are sitting empty for 90 days, and even mid-level roles stretch out to 60 days. Tech companies are hiring faster than ever, and here we are adding another interview round because "we want to be thorough."

It gets worse every year too. I keep watching companies add more interview rounds, more approval layers, more "let's just make sure" conversations. Everyone else is streamlining, and we're somehow going in the opposite direction.

But here's the part that really caught my attention - that 92% of candidates who abandon lengthy application processes? These aren't people desperately hunting for any job. These are the regulatory managers with 15 years of experience, the clinical research directors getting headhunted, the quality assurance leads who already have three companies trying to recruit them. When they hit your 40-minute application portal or don't hear back for three weeks, they're not just getting frustrated. They're deciding this probably isn't a company that values people's time or knows how to make decisions.

Think about the regulatory manager with 15 years of experience who's currently employed and getting headhunted. She's not desperately applying to every job posting she sees. She's carefully considering her next move, and your hiring process is essentially her first impression of how your company operates.

What's Actually Happening While You're "Following Process"

Here's what I've observed happening in real time, and I've watched this play out dozens of times over the past few years:

Days 1-10: Your candidate is genuinely excited. They've done their homework on your company, maybe even looked up your recent publications or pipeline updates. They're going home and talking about this opportunity over dinner.

Days 11-30: The enthusiasm starts to cool. They're getting LinkedIn messages from other recruiters, and frankly, some of these other opportunities are starting to sound pretty appealing too.

Days 31-60: Now they're actively interviewing elsewhere. And here's what hurts - these other companies are making them feel wanted. Quick responses, streamlined processes, genuine interest in their background.

Days 61+: By this point, they've either accepted something else or they've mentally checked out of your process entirely.

I'm not making this up or pulling it from some generic study. Just last month, I watched a pharmaceutical company lose their ideal candidate for a pharmacovigilance role. They spent twelve weeks "ensuring cultural alignment" while a biotech across town made a decision in three weeks. Same candidate, same skill set, but one company showed they could actually make decisions.

The thing that really gets to me is how often this happens right at the finish line. You've invested months, conducted multiple interviews, built relationships, and then someone else swoops in with an offer while you're still "finalizing details."

Your competitors aren't necessarily throwing around bigger salaries. They're just showing candidates something we all value: that their time matters and that working there means decisions actually get made.

The Hidden Costs You're Not Calculating

When I bring up hiring costs with clients, they usually think about recruitment fees or job board subscriptions. But honestly, those are pocket change compared to what slow hiring is really costing them.

Sure, the average cost per hire hovers around ,700 across industries, but in our specialized world, it's significantly higher. What really keeps me up at night, though, is thinking about everything else that's happening while that chair sits empty.

Take that senior clinical research position that's been vacant for four months. Every single day, your studies are moving a little slower. Or that regulatory affairs manager role - each week without someone in that seat means delayed submissions and potentially missed deadlines that could impact your entire timeline.

I worked with a biotech company last year that did something smart - they actually calculated what it cost them to leave a medical affairs director position open for six months. Beyond the obvious recruitment expenses, they tracked delayed product launches, missed opportunities at medical conferences, strained relationships with key opinion leaders. When they added it all up, they were looking at over €300,000 in lost opportunities.

But here's where it gets really painful - the ripple effect. When critical positions stay empty, everyone else has to pick up the slack. People get burned out, morale drops, and sometimes you end up losing more people because the workload became unsustainable. I've seen companies lose two or three good employees because they couldn't fill one key role fast enough.

And then there's the opportunity cost that's almost impossible to put a number on but is absolutely real. In our life sciences, timing is everything. Six months can mean the difference between being first to market or playing catch-up. When hiring delays slow down your research or push back regulatory submissions, you're not just losing recruitment costs - you could be losing your competitive edge.

Why Life Sciences Hiring is Different (And Harder)

Look, I get why our industry moves slower than others. We're not looking for someone who can "manage social media" or "handle customer service." We need people who can navigate the labyrinth of GMP regulations, who understand the nuances of clinical trial design, who can tell you exactly why an EMA submission differs from an FDA filing.

The regulatory landscape doesn't make things easier either. GDPR means we can't just reach out to anyone, anywhere, anytime. If you're hiring internationally, work permit processes can add months to your timeline, especially in countries like Germany where the bureaucracy moves at its own pace.

And here's something I see all the time - HR teams struggling to evaluate candidates for roles they don't fully understand. They know the job description says "HPLC experience required," but they can't distinguish between someone who's run basic assays and someone who can troubleshoot complex method development issues. This usually leads to either overloading hiring managers (who already have full-time jobs) or adding multiple technical interview rounds to compensate.

Working across European markets adds another layer of complexity. You might need someone comfortable operating in German-speaking Switzerland while reporting to English-speaking headquarters, or someone who can navigate emerging Eastern European markets where the talent pool is smaller but the opportunities are multiplying.

I absolutely understand that life sciences hiring is more complex than hiring for most other industries. But complex doesn't have to mean slow.

The Path Forward: Speed Without Sacrifice

The companies that consistently win the talent war have cracked the code on being both fast and thorough. Here's what separates them from everyone else:

They think ahead. Instead of scrambling to write job descriptions when someone gives notice, they maintain current role profiles and have succession plans mapped out. They know exactly what they need before the urgency hits.

Actually know how to make decisions. The best companies I work with have hiring committees where everyone knows their role and can actually act on it. Instead of trying to get buy-in from eight different stakeholders, they get meaningful input from three people who can actually make decisions.

They front-load the technical screening. Rather than putting candidates through multiple rounds of technical interviews, they use targeted assessments or focused technical conversations early on to properly qualify people from the start.

They actually communicate. Their candidates always know what's coming next and when. Even when things need to slow down, people understand why and have realistic expectations about timing.

They don't try to do everything themselves. Instead of having their internal HR team hunt for niche regulatory affairs managers or clinical statisticians, they work with recruiters who actually know these people and can pick up the phone to make things happen.

The approach that works best combines what companies do well internally - culture assessment, final decision-making, onboarding - with external expertise for sourcing, initial screening, and market intelligence.

Take Action Before Your Next Great Candidate Gets Away

If you're seeing your company reflected in what I've written here, you're definitely not alone. Most life sciences organizations wrestle with hiring speed. What separates the companies that consistently attract top talent from those that don't usually comes down to recognizing there's a problem and actually doing something about it.

Here's what I'd encourage you to do: take a hard look at your last three senior hires. How long did each process actually take from job posting to signed offer? How many qualified candidates walked away during the process? And what did the candidates who went through your process actually say about it?

Look, at PNJ Global, we've helped dozens of life sciences companies across Europe speed up their hiring without sacrificing the quality they need. We know exactly where the bottlenecks typically happen and how to eliminate them while maintaining the thoroughness your industry demands.

The reality is that exceptional candidates won't wait six months for your decision. But they will wait 10 days for the right opportunity presented professionally and efficiently.