This job is extremely stressful, and it goes unrecognized and is not fully acknowledged or rewarded/ compensated. Staff are asked to perform every task to the tee of SOPs, cGMP, FDA, etc., while also focusing on achieving all kinds of internal metric goals. Have to process very quickly, get accurate venipunctures, great customer service, remain professional, deal with CONSTANT changes in policy and guidance. Nobody can even keep track of all of the changes. The management teams try to keep up and connect with employees. They receive so much communication from corporate, and are SO micro-managed, that they don't even have time to work with the staff. It's not really the regulation that's hard to keep up with. Anyone can get used to that. It's totally ineffective decision-making and disorganization in the upper level of BioLife. All departments tend to work in a vacuumed silo, with their own separate agenda. And so they hand down most communication for their department as if every single thing is a crisis. You never know what's really important because everything comes off as important.
Getting a reminder about filling out 2 blanks on a spreadsheet for somebody's project vs dealing with all of the current production, HR, facility maintenance, strategic planning, quality assurance, training, marketing, logistics, employee development, is ridiculous. It's simply ridiculous. But it happens all day.
Most importantly, beyond the facility locations, MEANINGFUL feedback is never requested. Things are handed down from the top, and thinking or questioning, or pointing out issues or suggesting alternatives is highly discouraged. "Just get on board" That's the message. So, this company is not for the thinking person. They want to solve all of your problems for you, and constantly try to fix things that are not broken at your location, for the sake of "consistency." It doesn't matter how many people BioLife certifies as Lean Green Belts. That doesn't make a company innovative. It's a nice career development tool, but the green belts are not used in a meaningful way. Who isn't a Lean Green Belt in BioLife these days?
If cost is important, then why send an employee to BioLife University for a four hour class, ($1500+) when they can learn the same thing at the location in real life? Why are there so many odd job titles being added to different departments, when there are only three people working in the health and safety department? Why order expensive printed marketing materials for the centers automatically, vs. letting them chose? Why keep the Supervised Playroom open when it makes no money for the company or is empty most of the time? Why spend so much money on stylish materials, too much space, and design features in new facilities? When an older facility cannot get any storage space added, or much-needed work and maintenance completed short of the threat of losing donations in that location? Why pay a staff of 14 to work until late evening during the holidays, when there are 4 donors scheduled to come in for the last 3 hours of the day? Why complete repairs with the most expensive company available vs the local guy who can do it for 3 times less? You get the picture. Money is allocated without the whole picture perspective. It's needed in many areas where it's unavailable and hard to obtain, but appears to be available only for certain departments.
There is a real lack of empowerment. Managers are not actually able to influence budget, donor compensation fees, promotions in any way beyond "rearranging" the months when they happen. Experienced manager input seems to count for nothing.
The turnover is stressful to the staff AND to the managers. There is virtually NO money budgeted for staff appreciation. That's too bad, because these staff members deserve so many rewards. They work the hardest of all. Some geographical locations (where there are qualified applicants and plentiful job opportunities) have up to 50% turnover in a year. That much training, hiring, learning, working short-staffed is stressful. We're talking about that much turnover where there are between 40-80 employees. Imagine starting 20-40 people per year. Entry level jobs take 6-8 weeks for new staff to feel kind of comfortable in their positions. They are often forced to be on their own much too soon because locations lose so many staff. They feel rushed, they make mistakes, and who can blame them? They can't get the 1 on 1 time that they need because centers are so busy training and hiring, checking boxes and micro-managing. This is a real concern that has been omnipresent, but upper leadership still tells center management teams to "be ready/ be staffed" for some donor fees coming in the next 2 months. It takes 3 weeks just to hire if a candidate is good. Then they need to be trained. It's simply impossible to feel successful or ever caught up.
And operational decisions like expanding appointments or adding hours are not made in conjunction with the location's management team. The teams are simply told what is going to happen, and to make it happen as soon as possible. Nevermind the fact that it will cause a great hardship to comply. That feedback is not invited. You are not seen as a teamplayer if you try to make sense of anything. You are seen as being "negative."
If you want to move up, you'll likely have to relocate. If you become a Manager Trainee, you'll have to travel all of the time. Trainees are mostly used as support personnel. Senior leadership is trying to fill positions in locations that haven't been built, so they are talking up supervisors without talking to their current managers- at the current locations- to see how it would impact that location to lose a large chunk of their talent. And, many times, this talk is misleading. the young supervisors think they have a good chance of becoming a manager at the new location. However, the regions where these new locations are opening usually have their candidates pre-selected before the location opens. You can apply, but it seems like a show for HR's sake. They usually know who they want from the start. This isn't fair, and it sets a bad example for future leaders.
Politics are rampant. When long-term people don't talk on conference calls, that's a bad sign. That means they either aren't competent enough to think of good questions, they know their feedback will be taken personally or put down, or they've totally given up on bothering. The go-getters that are just beginning their career are the ones that try the hardest. In the future, they will eventually learn that this is pointless.
As a man, even I have to say that there is a bias towards male leaders once you start looking at the manager level and above. And an unconsious bias against women in leadership. I've seen it firsthand. The company is made up of mostly female staff, however, at the level of manager and above, females are usually promoted to supporting roles, reporting to a male. Men are the majority of regional managers, and directors, and seem to be promoted over female candidates for manager positions. I was once asked by my own boss when "so-and-so" will be ready for a management position. So and so was a male. And, my boss did not make the same inquiry about the three females at So-and-so's same position level. Also, So-and-so was having performance issues, and was later termed for sexual harassment. I had never stated that So-and-so was promotable. It was just randomly brought up by my boss. Another boss was brand new. This boss stated to me, without even being on topic, that he "wants to promote" one of my male leadership team, after meeting with him for less than an hour. He never inquired about the female leader, who was performing at the exact same standards. I was once in the room when a Director said the words "I've worked with Type A women like you before" and went on to talk about his judgement of how she probably thinks. He didn't even know her. And he was also wrong.
I left for all of these reasons. I probably stayed too long. I stayed for the staff members and fellow leaders that worked with me at that location. I was not fired, not on the verge of being fired, was well-liked, and still have many, many friends in the company. I value the connections that I made during my time. There are some great people all over the company, with excellent ideas and a lot of talent. There are a lot of very nice people and there are plenty of hardworking staff members making things happen at the lowest level of the locations every day. Those staff members make the biggest difference of all. Most staff and low-level leaders see these issues, too. However, most believe it's pointless to say anything, and perhaps they are correct?
