Courtesy of Transform Pharmaceuticals

What makes a company a great place to work? In our fourth annual survey, industry scientists share their insights. BY KAREN PALLARITO

Brian Hopkins, a PhD research scientist and project leader at Infinity Pharmaceuticals, joined the Cambridge, Mass., company in May 2002 partly because he liked its DOS (diversity-oriented synthesis) chemistry platform. Working with a leader like Infinity's founder, president, and CEO, Steven H. Holtzman, also appealed to him. Plus, he says, it was a chance to get involved in a company from its start, put a lot of creativity and energy into it, and "really start to see something transform in front of [my] eyes."

COURTESY OF AMGEN

At Raven Biotechnologies in South San Francisco, it's the mission that resonated with research associate Mary Ann Santos, who joined the company in March 2003. "Even though I'm not in the trenches treating cancer patients or anything like that, I feel like I'm contributing to their well-being," she says. Although she doesn't have a PhD, management continues to extend opportunities for her to gain experience outside of her area of expertise. "They believe in what I do," she insists, "so there's no glass ceiling."

Like Hopkins and Santos, many scientists agree that management, research environment, and job satisfaction can make or break a company. These three categories ranked first, second, and third, respectively, in The Scientist's 2006 survey of Best Places to Work in Industry. Interestingly, the places scoring highly on these attributes also tended to be small companies. Seven of the top 10 companies have 5,000 or fewer employees, including Infinity (fourth in the overall rankings) and Raven (seventh overall, see Top 40 Companies).

Annette Baron, president of Eagle Research, a Fairfield, NJ-based firm that recruits for the pharmaceutical and biotech sectors, isn't surprised that small companies ranked higher overall than Big Pharma. Scientists can easily become dissatisfied when they lack ownership in the business, she says, "and when you work for a big company ... you get siloed. You only see your piece." Biotech companies, on the other hand, tend to be smaller, entrepreneurial outfits where scientists get to be part of the solution, she reasons. "They get to bask in the success."

Infinity espouses a culture of "citizen ownership," the idea that employees are collectively engaged in achieving success. Everyone works from laptop computers in a totally wireless, office-less facility. Everything about every project is discussed at company meetings and then posted on the intranet. And it's not the degree a scientist holds that's important but what he or she brings to the mix.

Small, of course, isn't always superior. Genentech (fifth overall and second among large companies) ranked third on research environment, while Amgen (third overall and first among large companies) scored well on research environment and job satisfaction (see Top Companies on Most Important Factors). Among major pharmaceutical manufacturers, AstraZeneca of Sweden and Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) USA scored best with scientists, ranking fourth and fifth, respectively, among large companies and 12th and 13th in the overall rankings (see Top 20 Large Companies and Top 15 Small Companies).

Pharmaceuticals is a company focus for a majority of this year's survey respondents, and almost half report that one of their company's main areas of work is biotechnology. Only 8% work for companies that focus on supplies and equipment.

---

"Big Pharma is a better place for someone who seeks a structured environment," says Maureen Kerber, president of the Kerber Group, a Kirkland, Wash.-based recruiter for the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. She also believes bigger companies provide "the illusion of security," adding that with mergers, consolidations, and layoffs in the pharmaceutical sector, "there really isn't any more security in Big Pharma than there is in a small biotech."

Working for a large drugmaker does have certain advantages. For example, scientists at BMS noted that the company is a great place for working mothers and fathers. It's among Working Mother magazine's Top 10 Best Companies for 2005. BMS also offers childcare at four onsite centers. "My children attend the daycare, and I'm very happy with the care they receive," says one dad. Still, he complains that tuition is increasing at a rate that outpaces growth in salaries.

Industry scientists around the globe agree that the most important factor for workplace satisfaction is having a job that gives them personal satisfaction. It was the top-rated factor for all companies, large and small. Industry scientists also value companies where their contributions are appreciated and where teamwork is a priority (second most important in small companies, third in large ones). "If there's a team of people that don't know what they're doing, then that's a turnoff for a scientist," Kerber says.

Among scientists at small companies, working for a company whose top managers are scientifically knowledgeable and who value research vaulted in importance as a factor this year (12th) versus 2005 (31st), although it still didn't make the Most Important Factors list. Likewise, good communication between research and other departments jumped in importance among scientists in small companies, ranking sixth this year, up from 21st in 2005 (see Most Important Factors).

Almost 60% of survey respondents have worked for their current employer five years or less; 22% have served five to 10 years at their current company, and another 19% have been a part of their company for 10 years or more.

---

To foster open communications, Raven Biotechnologies holds a companywide meeting every Wednesday. The forum gives each of its approximately 65 employees an opportunity to discuss what they're doing, how they're doing it, and what results they're seeing. "It's transference of knowledge between people that might not have anything to do with each other," says Steve Worsley, the company's vice president of business development. Moreover, the free flow of information has made employees more willing to pitch in to achieve corporate goals.

Scientists also agree that the best companies provide them with the equipment and services they need to work effectively (second for large companies, fourth for small). Yet, a distinct size-based divide emerges when scientists are asked about the importance of a company that fully funds their research: That factor ranked higher in large companies (fifth) than in small ones (25th). Scientists at several large companies, including Novartis in Vienna, Sanofi-Aventis in Toronto, and Amgen in California, say sufficient funding to perform high-quality research is the factor they most appreciate at their companies.

Remuneration and benefits ranked eighth out of eight categories in the survey. It's not that money isn't an issue - people always want more, Baron submits - but money isn't the critical issue. "It's going into work every day to feel that you're contributing, that you're part of an entire project, that you belong, that you like the people you're working with," she explains. "That's job satisfaction."

As a small, family-owned business, top-ranked Tec Laboratories in Albany, Ore., can't offer the same benefits as a large company. But it does try to share the wealth. Each year the company pays a fixed percentage of its net profit to eligible employees. Even in lean years, employees can count on getting a bonus in addition to their base compensation, says Larry Burris, a national sales manager. And when the company has a particularly good year due to, say, sales of a new product, the bonus can be very handsome indeed.

COURTESY OF AMGEN

When a scientist takes a job with a young biotech venture, there's also the hope of an initial public offering. "That's something down the road that you look at and you say, yeah, well, there's a possibility this may pay off," Infinity's Hopkins says.

What happens when a budding scientific enterprise becomes large and successful? Does management begin to lose touch with workers? Do product development efforts begin to overshadow research? Do scientists become dissatisfied with their jobs? Consider Amgen, this year's top-ranked large company. When asked about the least appreciated factor at their company, employees complained about it growing too fast, having too many meetings, and "becoming more and more like Big Pharma."

"Amgen's leadership is keenly aware of the challenges we face as the company grows," says David Polk, a company spokesperson. "We are hard at work to resist the traditional pitfalls of companies that have grown big and turned away from what made them successful," he adds.

"Amgen's done a fairly good job of managing their growth," Kerber says, "but I think that they have made some mistakes, and there's been some people who have felt that they were unfavorably affected."

Not surprisingly, two-thirds of this year's respondents report that laborartory research is one of their main areas of responsibility in their jobs. Another 28% have management duties, while only 16% are involved in clincial and field research.

---

Could Amgen's growing pains be a cautionary tale for other best companies? "It's kind of a Catch 22," Kerber says. "You're successful and you've grown, and the people who got you to where you are aren't happy with the changing environment. But, it's inevitable that the environment will change in certain ways when you do become big."

Holtzman, for one, is mindful of the challenge. Infinity currently employees about 115 people, including 95 to 100 scientists. At some point, he believes, a company's size causes employees to become further removed from management, as they begin to feel less of an identity with the community and its mission. At what point does that occur - is it 150 or 250 employees? He's not sure, but were Infinity to grow bigger than that, he says he would intervene. "I would look to try to get more units, which can have sources of identity in more local communities, but really truly be empowered." In his view, companies achieve greatness when employees are given the freedom to create, improvise, and innovate.

kpallarito@the-scientist.com