Life Science Recruiting is like set theory: the tricky search for the perfect overlap is a thrilling exercise. Mathematical understanding can be useful – there is however another decisive factor: the knowledge of human nature.

In my early years at primary school, learning set theory was a major thing. We, little kids, struggled to create sets of green, red, and blue bricks, shuffled around circles, triangles, and squares.

The statement was: “Build the set of squares” - meaning gathering red, blue, and green squares. With three differentiating factors and additional exclusion criteria, the exercise sometimes became critical. “Squares that are not red”, etc.

Squaring the circle
Our tasks in today’s recruiting are similar: “Find a Life Science Professional, ideally trained in organic chemistry, with 2-5 years of experience in QA and familiar with GMP-regulated production environment.”

Sounds easy, right? Here are our subsets:

1. Education in Life Science: Only part of Life Science Professionals have studied chemistry, amongst whom just a few of them organic chemistry. Even if not considered an exclusion factor, it nevertheless remains a very limiting factor. Only a fraction of all potential candidates are organic chemists.
2. QA Experience: Most of the time only direct employment in a QA department is viewed as relevant QA experience. The purpose of very similar tasks like QC, Qualification/Validation, and Production abiding by QA rules is not always considered valid. The subset of Life Science Professionals landing in QA is limited, since many favour research, development, production and other traditional fields of activity.
3. Preferred Industry: In the many alternatives of production of chemical substances and products, we have to limit ourselves to candidates who have worked in GMP-regulated environment. This typically means industries for finished pharmaceutical products, active pharmaceutical ingredients or subcontractors of such. Excluded are paints and lacquers, as well as all additives and coatings for various applications, apart from medical applications. At most, industries for fertilizers, cosmetic ingredients or food additives (active ingredients) may be considered.

Zero matches – an empty subset!
Let’s get to intersecting sets. Which candidates meet all three above-mentioned criteria? We quickly lack latitude. Each additional criterion reduces the number of potential candidates – sometimes to the point that we have zero matches. The subset is empty. And everyone used to dealing with profile requirements knows that line managers usually list more than three criteria.

Adjusting intersecting sets is inevitable

That’s were HR work begins. HR experts increasingly play a key role in recruiting: they are involved early in the process and support line managers and team as an HR business partner throughout the entire recruiting. HR experts are polyvalent, both as regards educational background and day-to-day tasks at work.

Consistent questioning helps

Even if HR experts cannot have a sharp knowledge of every field, they must find a way to reach a reasonable consensus with the line manager on must-meet and should-meet criteria. Companies know from experience which profiles are particularly challenging to find. My advice: don’t let the technical jargon used by line managers and specialists intimidate you. The more specialized technical and scientific profiles are, the deeper the HR expert must investigate each and every mandatory technical prerequisite: why should it be only squares, could polygons possibly fit? The intersection set can significantly grow for every single point and with it, the chance to find the right match for the role.

Personality gains over sophisticated skill packages
In the very end, candidates’ personalities are the decision making point: choosing a person with a backpack of technical skills and experiences is always more farsighted than choosing sophisticated technical skills with a person in the backpack.