Why ‘Time to Hire’ Matters More Than Ever in MedTech, Life Sciences and Biotech
Most business leaders can tell you their sales growth, operating margin, pipeline value and forecast for the next quarter, all of which are crucial measures of business performance. But how many can tell you how long it takes their organisation to hire a critical employee?
At first glance, time to hire may appear to be little more than a recruitment metric. In reality, it can have a direct impact on revenue, product launches, customer relationships, regulatory compliance and long-term business growth.
Recent recruitment studies suggest that the average time to hire is approximately 36-43 days in the United States, 34-40 days in the United Kingdom and 38-40 days across Europe. However, for specialist sectors such as medical devices, life sciences and biotechnology, hiring timelines are often considerably longer due to the scarcity of experienced commercial, clinical, regulatory and technical professionals. Source: [smartrecruiters.com], [squarelogik.com], [taleva.io]
The challenge is not that hiring takes time. The challenge is ensuring internal systems, processes and decision-making do not create unnecessary delays.
A vacant Territory Manager can mean customers receive less support and competitors gain access to key accounts. An unfilled Regulatory Affairs position can slow submissions and delay product launches. A lack of clinical or technical expertise can place additional pressure on existing teams and create bottlenecks elsewhere in the business. Every additional week that a role remains vacant has a cumulative effect that is often underestimated.
The reality is that finding the right people has become increasingly difficult. Employers are no longer looking for candidates with just one area of expertise. Many are seeking individuals who combine technical credibility, commercial awareness, regulatory knowledge and the ability to influence multiple stakeholders. These professionals are highly sought after and frequently have several opportunities available to them at the same time. As a result, organisations are competing in a market where specialist talent is limited and speed increasingly matters.
Unfortunately, many hiring processes are built in a way that extends time to hire unnecessarily. Job descriptions are frequently outdated or repeatedly revised before advertising therefore no one is clear of the role they are hiring for. Interview stages are added without clear purpose. Key decision-makers struggle to align diaries or expectations. Feedback is delayed, and hiring teams wait for larger candidate shortlists before progressing to the next stage.
While these actions are often intended to reduce hiring risk, they can have the opposite effect. The longer the process takes, the greater the chance that strong candidates will lose interest, accept alternative opportunities or begin questioning the organisation's ability to make decisions.
One of the most common reasons for prolonged hiring timelines is the pursuit of the "perfect candidate". Many organisations convince themselves that an even stronger candidate may appear if they wait a little longer or interview a few more people. In reality, perfection is rarely the issue. The issue is that every additional week spent searching comes at a cost. Projects are delayed. Existing employees absorb additional workloads. Revenue opportunities are postponed. Growth slows. Meanwhile, competitors continue moving forward.
This challenge is becoming even more significant as MedTech and Life Science organisations face pressure to bring innovations to market more quickly than ever. Demand continues to grow for experienced commercial professionals, market access experts, regulatory specialists, quality leaders and clinical professionals. These are precisely the roles that often take longest to fill and where prolonged vacancies can have the greatest business impact.
The organisations that consistently hire well tend to understand that reducing time to hire is not about lowering standards. It is about improving decision-making.
