There are subtle but important differences in the way that work proceeds in one company versus another. While two work cultures may share common elements, primarily centered on the science itself, or perhaps on the product development category, there will still be a number of differences between one employer and another. These differences in “how things work” can come as a rude shock—particularly if you’ve made the move and discover them after the fact!

As you transition from one company to another, you’ll likely experience some bumps—most people do. Remember when you moved into a company for the first time out of school? You had to learn what it’s like to be a part of a company project, for example, or, how to participate effectively in daily or weekly team meetings. But those were small things. Sometimes, the differences between companies and managers can be substantial, the cause behind untold amounts of stress.

These cultural differences have the potential to trip you up and keep you from having the opportunity to prove yourself in the new environment. Or, they can hold you back from landing the job offer in the first place. In this month’s article, my examples will show you how seemingly small differences in the pace of work and information flow can become important, even during the initial stages of discussion.

Phil
Phil had prepared well for this interview, his first outside of the company he’d been with for more than three years. He had studied the agenda and the backgrounds of the people he’d be meeting, and knew a lot about the company from their website. Because it felt like he had really aced his two morning sessions, he was feeling good. Next up, though, was a noon meeting with Foster Green, R&D head and his prospective boss.

As Phil approached the conference room, his HR escort mentioned that the meeting with Green had to be kept to 45 minutes. That wasn’t a good sign, Phil thought; originally this “working lunch” had been scheduled for an hour; already he had less time with the boss than he expected. Then, the head of research walked in and sat down, still talking on his cell phone. They exchanged smiles, but these small details conspired to undermine Phil’s confidence and replaced it with a case of the interview jitters. Green motioned for Phil to take a seat while he finished his conversation.

Phil took a moment to center himself and recalled his thorough preparation. He had spent a lot of time thinking about his work experiences and how they had positioned him as a scientist. He was prepared to speak eloquently and at length about any of his experiences over the last few years, or even stretch back to his postdoc in the Watson lab at State.

After a brief introduction, Green asked the first question. “Phil, please give us a snapshot of yourself and your science. Take a few minutes and tell me what makes you a good fit for my team.”

Wow, this wasn’t the kind of question that Phil was expecting. He’d come in prepared to talk in great detail about himself and his experiences. Instead, Green was asking him to sum his work up briefly and connect it with the company’s needs.

Phil started talking. Despite his extensive preparation, he wasn’t prepared for this. He floundered. He felt self-conscious. He was going on too long, and he knew it, and he didn’t like the silences that filled the room when he stopped talking. His most important meeting of the day was headed off in the wrong direction. He could feel it, but he didn’t know how to fix it.

Kyra
Kyra put a thank you note in the mail to Dr. Watson, who had been her Ph.D. advisor four years ago at Big State University. It was nice to know that Dr. Watson had thought of her when making recommendations to her former labmate, Foster Green, now at ABC Biotech.

Reflecting later on her interview that day, Kyra thought about what she had done well and what she could have done better. At the beginning of the meeting, Green had asked for a summary of her background and experience—he called it a “snapshot”—and how it might relate to her work for ABC biotech. He was asking her to convince him that she was a good fit for the company and the job.
As the conversation developed, Green asked for more and more detail—a surprising amount of detail about her collaborators and what each person’s role was—and what she had learned about communicating with other scientists, some of whom are from other disciplines. It didn’t take her long to realize that Green wasn’t after Kyra’s Greatest Hits. Instead, he wanted to understand the breakdown of the work among the team she was working with—not, what she achieved but what the team achieved, what her contribution was, and how her work benefitted from the contributions of others.

Once she knew what he was after, she felt comfortable. She laid out each of her career experiences in detail, and he seemed satisfied with her answers. The interview might not lead to a job, Kyra decided, but even if it didn’t it was a valuable learning experience.

Green’s perspective
Dr. Green reviewed his notes on his last two interviews for the opening. His old colleague, Susan Watson, had recommended them, and Green had found that she had a good eye for talent. Both of them had come out of her lab a few years earlier.

Green had asked both candidates his usual kick-off question and found, as he had found before, that some candidates don’t handle it well. He asked himself, why does he keep asking it? But he knew the answer: It’s an effective test of how readily people can adapt, intuitively and on the fly, to his and his team’s communication style. Green is used to accomplishing a lot each day, relying on his people to match his pace and provide the succinct summaries he needs to make sound decisions. He relies on them to work together with each other and communicate to get things done.

As he reviewed his notes, Green concluded that Phil was having trouble shaking off his academic roots. His kick-off response had been long, unfocused, self-centered, and driven by examples that weren’t relevant to the company’s activities or plans. Phil obviously had spent a lot of time preparing, but he had not demonstrated that he could adapt to the team’s needs. Was it an unfair test? Maybe. It certainly is possible that Phil would have caught on quickly and become a good employee. He just didn’t seem like a safe bet as it was clear the company he was with has a completely different way of working.

Susan’s other recommendation, though—Kyra—was a different story. His conversation with her had gone much better. She even handled his opening “snapshot” request pretty well. In contrast to Phil, Kyra had managed to give Green the information he wanted in the form he wanted it in. She intuitively picked up on how he communicated and the pace he worked at. She, too, had done her homework; she knew what was going on in his lab. But her interview success reflected more than just good preparation. Kyra knows how to adapt. She has a sense for people and their needs.

Kyra’s potential for a totally multidisciplinary team environment was also clear in her descriptions of her work. She has the communication skills a person needs to work effectively on a team at ABC Biotech. She shared credit with her collaborators and spoke freely about what she had learned from them. Kyra seems to know how to get work done through others.

Green pulled out her CV and scribbled a note to HR about Kyra at the top. They had found a winner, and he wanted to make sure they didn’t waste time in making her an offer. 

---

David G. Jensen
Contributing Editor

David G. Jensen is an executive recruiter working in the life sciences with more than three decades of biotechnology experience. He can be reached at (928) 274-2266 or via davejensen70@gmail.com