Debates around tariffs and wider trade tensions often center on supply chains and manufacturing, but beneath that conversation lies another, quieter shift – how these forces are reshaping the executive talent landscape in life sciences.

Occam Global is an executive search firm serving the biotech and pharma sectors and the innovation economy generally. A recent report from them has highlighted a sharp increase in demand for US-based leadership talent as companies accelerate reshoring. But it isn’t just about building new facilities on American soil; it’s about finding leaders who can steer through geopolitical, operational, and strategic complexities.

The most sought-after executives are those who can navigate geopolitical risk by managing global supply chains under volatile trade conditions, operationalize reshoring by expanding or building US operations efficiently, and align organizations to capital efficiency as boards push for leaner, more agile leadership. At the same time, companies are looking for leaders who can balance global and local priorities, understanding FDA and other regulatory expectations while maintaining strong international partnerships. 

We speak with Occam Global CEO William Holodnak about how these shifting dynamics are redefining leadership strategies.

How have tariffs and trade disruptions shifted the way life sciences companies approach executive hiring?

There’s definitely downward pressure on prices, which creates pressure on earnings and, in turn, on costs. But at the executive level, we haven’t seen any significant downward pressure on R&D or manufacturing leadership roles. The competition for top talent remains intense. In fact, demand for great supply chain, manufacturing, and tech ops executives is only increasing, especially for US-based roles.

We’re not necessarily seeing fees jump overnight, but the value of these executives is rising. The market for this kind of leadership is still very active.

Are you seeing an uptick in onshoring activity?

Definitely, we have a number of clients now getting funded in ways they wouldn’t have a few years ago, particularly in advanced manufacturing. One example is Chemify, based in Scotland, UK. They’ve developed a robotics- and AI-driven system that automates chemical synthesis and production. They essentially have the capacity to “print” molecules. The company recently closed a $50+ million Series B round, which likely wouldn’t have been as readily possible without the current geopolitical climate driving interest in domestic and resilient manufacturing technologies.

So, reshoring goes beyond building facilities and into operationalizing them effectively?

Exactly. Every major pharma company is now investing in expanding manufacturing capabilities, particularly in the US Northeast. Boston, for instance, is one of the most competitive labor markets in the world for biotech. Securing the right talent there is incredibly challenging, given the intensity of competition.

What qualities distinguish executives who can lead this kind of transformation, especially while keeping costs under control?

There are two approaches. One is the traditional focus on cost discipline and financial rigor; squeezing inefficiencies out through management and accounting precision. The other, and arguably more leveraged approach, is using technology to drive efficiency and reduce costs.

We’re currently working with a major global pharma company that is heavily investing in AI and machine learning to accelerate discovery and clinical approval and to cut manufacturing costs. One executive even told me about running a fully automated plant with just three people. The future lies in this combination: classic cost control paired with cutting-edge technology.

What are the challenges in meeting the demand for leaders who can integrate these technologies and manage geopolitical risks?

The challenge is not just managing geopolitical risks but accommodating the downward pressure that's coming – or that already exists. Recruiting people with AI and machine learning expertise, whether in technical operations or R&D, is a challenge. It's still a relatively new and rapidly evolving discipline, and there aren't that many trained experts. That paucity of talent drives up individual compensation. Because it's such a young field, and because there's so much money being thrown at these people, they never seem to develop managerial wisdom. Trying to find somebody who really understands the technology, whatever its application, is hard enough. To then try and find that extra je ne c'est quoi that allows them to both attract other geniuses and then get those geniuses to observe some level of ordered progress is really challenging.

Which experiences are most valuable in this market?

These are time-honored technical operations executives – people who are highly detail-oriented and deeply disciplined. If they’ve been through the process of building, implementing, and operationalizing a facility once or twice, then that experience is immensely valuable. When you consider their cultural or psychological makeup, these individuals are naturally meticulous. It is impossible to succeed in these roles without an eye for detail. Beyond that, the real differentiator is when someone can manage complexity without becoming consumed by it – leaders who can focus on the fine points without being pulled endlessly into them. Each functional area demands a distinct set of qualities to define excellence.

On the financial side, we value complete executives, professionals who understand inventory control, operational efficiency, and financial reporting, and are not just skilled in capital raising. Financial reporting is a technical discipline, and capital raising is essentially a sales discipline. But deciphering cost structures, identifying inefficiencies, and getting to the heart of an organization’s financial performance requires a third, rarer kind of skill set – one that pairs analytical precision and pragmatic insight, with plain speech, and genuine empathy.

Leadership, at its core, is always a balance of technical competence, imagination, and self-awareness. People who combine intuition, intellect, and self-awareness can improve not only their own performance but also raise that of those around them. This balance is especially vital in large pharmaceutical organizations. Understanding AI and machine learning is one thing; understanding biology is another. Very few people are deeply trained in both. Typically, leaders come from one end of the spectrum or the other – either from a wet-lab biology and discovery background, later teaching themselves AI, ML, or computer science, or from a quantitative, mathematical starting point, later learning to think like biologists. Those who successfully bridge the two worlds, who reach that “treasured center,” so to speak, are rare, but they’re the ones I most admire.

Are boardrooms and C-suites getting smaller as technology adoption increases?

We see boards of varying sizes – roughly six members on the small end and around ten on the large end. Once you get ten people around the table, it can start to feel less like clear reasoning and more like organized chaos, so that’s generally the upper limit. Rather than focusing solely on whether boards are getting smaller, what’s really changing is their composition. We’re beginning to see technology represented at the board level far more frequently than in the past. In fact, some of our early-stage clients are already planning how to build the “ideal” board, deliberately factoring in members who combine an AI background with experience in drug discovery.

Take, for example, Najat Khan, who began her career as a chemist, moved into management consulting, and later joined J&J in a hybrid role bridging R&D and technology. She’s now taken on a broader leadership position, but that dual expertise – scientific and technological – has made her one of the most sought-after board members in the industry. There are a few others like her, but those remain part of a rare and highly valued group.

So, we may not necessarily see boards shrinking. Instead, we might see them expand or evolve to include members who can represent technology at the strategic level. Technology is now embedded in every aspect of business, and it’s transforming how companies operate and think. Ensuring that perspective is present in the boardroom is becoming increasingly important.

As companies balance global regulatory compliance with local operations, what kinds of leaders are best equipped to manage that tension?

For these roles, there are certainly many qualified Americans, but the differentiator today is global awareness. We look for “global citizens" who have worked internationally – maybe even lived abroad – and who have a broad, culturally literate mindset. For example, we’re currently searching for a chairman for an oncology company whose founder is an immigrant to the UK who comes to entrepreneurship from academia. We need someone who’s been a CEO multiple times, can mentor others, and understands both US and European business cultures.

Experience matters, but so does empathy and intellectual curiosity. Leaders who think globally, appreciate different perspectives, and can bridge cultures are increasingly essential. Even as Washington shapes policy, biopharma remains a global industry, one that needs leaders who can operate with cosmopolitanism and perspicacity.