Multinational biopharma giants don’t have a lock on creating a great workplace. In fact, the most employee-friendly companies in life sciences are just as likely to be found among specialty pharma or biotech firms.
A recently debuted analysis, compiled by editors at U.S. News, shows four big biopharmas distinguished themselves on the quality of their pay and benefits. These were Bristol Myers Squibb and Eli Lilly, headquartered on the East Coast and in the Midwest, respectively, along with West Coast-based Amgen and Gilead.
But they were eclipsed by smaller counterparts, with over a dozen companies offering top-quality pay. These include Biogen and BioMarin, as well as Recursion Pharma and Regeneron Pharma, according to the pharmaceuticals and health products companies edition of U.S. News’ inaugural “Best Companies to Work For” project.
“We know, from an economy perspective and a labor market perspective, that the majority of folks are working in small and medium businesses,” said Angie Kamath, dean of the NYU School of Professional Studies. “So being able to showcase the economic impact of [these] businesses and highlight the opportunities that exist is very important.”
Kamath was one of six members of an expert advisory board who, in addition to the U.S. News team, opined on the group’s methodology and “Best Places to Work For” list.
U.S News considered both public and privately owned companies, as well as nonprofit organizations, headquartered in the U.S. The methodology is based on information from external sources, supplemented by publicly available records and reviews. The process was purely data-driven and did not include a “pay-to-play” element, stressed Kamath.
Only public firms made the final list of 51 companies, ranging from AbbVie, with 50,000 employees, to United Therapeutics, with 1,168. Some med-techs, like medical device maker Boston Scientific and DNA-sequencing manufacturer Illumina, also cleared the best-of bar.
The intent behind the data project was to “widen the aperture for what makes a good company,” explained Kamath, and to explore not just elements that make a great business model “but what truly makes a good environment for workers.”
The factors people use to make employment decisions — whether it’s reproductive rights, LGBTQ-plus-related rights, family planning rights — are “super different from even 10, 15, 20 years ago,” she added.
Taking its cue from Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the methodology evaluated entrants on six factors that support the everyday experience of employees. To determine the relative importance of each metric, U.S. News conducted an online poll, then weighted each factor accordingly.
Unsurprisingly, the 5,500 respondents ranked quality of pay/benefits as the top factor that contributes to a good workplace, followed by work/life balance and job/company stability. Variables of lesser standing included physical and psychological comfort, belongingness and esteem, as well as opportunities for professional development and advancement.
The data were calculated into a “benchmark score” of how companies compare to those in the same sector, as well as a “Z-score” of how they rate in relation to the statistical mean. Based on these scores, U.S. News grouped entrants into tiers, with tier No. 5 representing the highest performers. The expert opinion panel also weighed in.
Those in tier 5 for quality pay offered more than just high salaries. Amgen, for instance, has a range of financial benefits, from paid internships and wellness reimbursements to tuition assistance, 401(k) matching and discounted gym memberships. They also offer health and wellness benefits like childcare, along with workplace perks like flexible work arrangements.
“People want a lot more from a workplace, given how much time and talent and energy is spent there,” said Kamath. Indeed, “It’s not just about the pay.”
“Employee engagement and culture have gotten a lot more play,” she continued. “Post-COVID, there’s this notion that what makes for a great workplace is issues around flexibility, how well do people thrive here, how well are the companies situated for things like working mothers, for individuals who aren’t just focusing on being in the office Monday through Friday, nine-to-five plus weekends and evenings.”
And large pharma doesn’t have a monopoly on this. Small-to-midsize firms outshone their larger counterparts in the “quality pay” area, including stand-outs Accuray, Alkermes, Intuitive, Novavax, Relay Therapeutics, Sage Therapeutics, Sarepta Therapeutics, Vertex and United Therapeutics.
Asked what a competitive salary looks like, “It’s the total comp package, which is how people are starting to make decisions,” Kamath replied. “Pay is also about…what opportunities are there, the occupations that are available, the career ladders that are there.”
To be sure, there are great reasons to work for multinationals, including more job types and global roles. Larger companies are typically known for offering scale, big R&D units and opportunities to take on a multitude of assignments. Whereas smaller companies may be known for a higher concentration of responsibilities or less hierarchy to upper management.
“We’re not trying to prioritize one or the other,” said Kamath.
Just five companies attained the “top work environment” accolade, the largest being Agilent. The California drugmaker, which has 18,100 staff, earned tier-5 marks for work-life balance, stability, comfort and belongingness. The smallest, Cambridge, MA-based Relay – with just 323 employees – garnered high grades in all but two categories.
Full benefits data aren’t available for all specialty pharma and biotech companies on the U.S. News list. Nor does the analysis specify which roles generate the highest salaries, whether in sales and marketing, or in other areas like drug discovery/R&D or manufacturing.
While only those with the highest composite scores were included, U.S. News elected not to publish those scores, it said, as the importance of each metric can vary for each individual. In future iterations of the list, the group may try to capture — “in an authentic and data-driven way,” said Kamath — some of companies’ qualitative elements, as well.
For now, the analysis is designed not just to redefine what makes for a great working environment, but to arm job seekers and potential career changers with the tools to assess this, whether they’re preparing for a job interview or just doing research.
On the flip side, Kamath said she’ll be watching to see if management and leadership — including from companies that didn’t make the list — leverage it to examine their own policies. She hopes companies interrogate who’s on the list and that by doing so, the exercise leads to introspective questions like, “What could we maybe adopt? What could we emulate? What could we change?”
“‘Information as power’ is very much what we’re going for here,” said Kamath, “and giving agency in the area of workforce development.”
