One of the hardest (growth) decisions in early BioTech: What to hire next
By James Trott
One of the hardest parts of building an early-stage biotech or TechBio company is deciding what to hire next.
Because early hiring decisions are not just hiring decisions. They are strategy decisions, timing decisions, and sometimes financing decisions.
Hiring in early BioTech is different
Across early-stage biotech companies at seed to Series A, hiring decisions are rarely just about adding capacity. They are about building the capabilities that shape the company’s direction.
For example:
- A platform company deciding whether to build more computational capability or expand wet lab biology
- A therapeutics company deciding whether to stay asset-focused or invest in platform capability earlier
- A TechBio company deciding when AI capability becomes a core internal function rather than something external
- A company deciding whether the next hire should be a senior VP or a hands-on builder who can operate in ambiguity
None of these are purely hiring decisions. They are strategy, timing, and resource allocation decisions. And they are often being made while the science is evolving, the product direction is still forming, and funding timelines are uncertain.
The real difficulty is sequencing
Most early-stage companies don’t find hiring difficult because there are no candidates. The difficulty is deciding what capability is most important now, what comes next, and what should wait.
Early hiring is fundamentally about sequencing.
The order in which capabilities are added changes how a company operates. It changes what founders spend their time on. It changes how investors perceive progress. It changes how quickly the company can move.
- Hiring a senior leader before there is enough structure for them to lead can create complexity.
- Hiring only junior execution capacity without enough strategic capability can slow decision-making.
- Building out one function too early can unintentionally pull the company in a particular direction.
These are not obvious decisions at the time. They are trade-offs made under uncertainty.
Capability matters more than titles
One of the patterns that shows up repeatedly in early-stage biotech is that capability matters far more than titles.
Founders are often deciding between:
- A senior executive vs a strong hands-on operator
- A permanent hire vs a fractional or advisory capability
- A specialist vs a generalist builder
- Building internally vs partnering externally
These decisions shape the company much more than whether the title is Director, VP, or Head of.
But job descriptions and hiring processes tend to focus on titles and experience, because those are easier to define. The more difficult question is whether the capability and timing are right for the company.
This is where founders spend a lot of cognitive energy
When you talk to founders at seed and Series A stage, a surprising amount of time is spent thinking about questions like:
- Do we need this capability now, or in 12 months?
- Are we hiring for the company we are today or the company we are becoming?
- Should this be a senior hire yet, or someone who can build first?
- Is this something we should build internally at all?
- What does the leadership team eventually need to look like?
These are not straightforward hiring questions. They are company-building questions.
And they often sit alongside fundraising, scientific progress, partnerships, and everything else founders are already managing.
A different kind of hiring support
Most support around hiring is focused on execution — running searches, sourcing candidates, managing processes.
But many founders don’t primarily need help running a search. They need help thinking through the decision before the search even starts.
That usually means thinking about things like:
- Capability vs title
- Sequencing vs headcount growth
- Permanent vs fractional or advisory support
- When to build internally vs partner externally
- How the team should evolve between seed and Series A, and then Series A to B
This is less about recruitment and more about founding team formation and team architecture.
In practice, it often looks like acting as a sounding board during key moments — when founders are deciding whether to open a role, how senior it should be, or whether the company is ready for that capability yet.
The goal isn’t to build a bigger team
Early-stage biotech companies don’t progress because they hire more people. They progress because they add the right capabilities at the right time.
That is a sequencing and judgement problem more than a recruitment problem.
And because these decisions are made in uncertain, fast-moving environments, having someone who can sit alongside founders and help think through those trade-offs can be valuable — not to make decisions for them, but to help make the decisions clearer.
Because in early-stage companies, team decisions are some of the most important strategic decisions founders make.
Download the guide
If you’re currently thinking about how your team should evolve from seed to Series A, I’ve put together a short guide “Founding Team Formation: Support for Early-Stage Biotech and TechBio Founders.”
It covers:
- Team architecture and capability planning
- Hiring sequencing and timing
- When to hire permanent vs fractional vs advisory
- Where founders typically need decision support
Leave a Reply