January 20, 2026
If 2024 was “pilot everything” and 2025 was “prove value,” 2026 is shaping up as the year leaders get more opinionated and more operational.
Across biopharma, medtech, and adjacent life sciences, leadership priorities are clustering around three practical pressures:
This isn’t theory. Executive research points to AI becoming central to how organizations drive change and productivity, while dealmaking momentum and talent constraints keep forcing trade-offs in where to invest and how fast to hire.
Below is a short synthesis you can use for planning, hiring strategy, or internal alignment going into 2026.
Most leadership teams are past the stage of asking, “Should we use AI?” The more common questions in 2026 look like:
Deloitte’s 2026 executive outlook for life sciences reports that leaders broadly expect AI to play a central role in driving major change, and a meaningful share of leaders plan to use AI tools or training specifically to improve workforce productivity.
At the same time, there’s a reality check: some organizations have slowed or reshaped AI hiring, and the gap between “experimenting” and “end-to-end capability” is becoming visible. BCG points to a split where companies with stronger infrastructure and talent foundations are positioned to pull ahead, while others are still working through fragmented pilots and unclear ownership.
Instead of chasing a long list of AI projects, teams are prioritizing a smaller number of workflows that hit core business outcomes, such as:
Reuters reporting on the pharma sector describes how companies are doubling down on AI with the aim of reducing cost and timelines in drug development, and highlights the rise of AI-focused partnerships as the industry pushes toward practical impact.
Planning takeaway: In 2026, “AI strategy” is increasingly “work strategy.” Leaders who win here usually do three things: pick fewer priorities, align data + governance early, and invest in training so teams actually use the tools.
Even when overall hiring cools in parts of the market, life sciences still has a persistent problem: the hardest roles to fill are often the ones you can’t easily replace, and you feel the gap immediately when scaling gets real.
The most acute pain tends to show up in senior and specialized areas like:
Hiring commentary going into 2026 continues to flag shortages in GMP manufacturing and quality, particularly tied to biologics and advanced therapies.
At a broader workforce level, research also emphasizes that some skills are difficult to automate or augment, which makes senior leadership and high-judgment roles even more critical as AI expands.
Because senior talent is scarce (and expensive), leaders are balancing three moves at once:
1) Retain the experts you already have
This looks like workload control, clearer decision rights, and better internal mobility. BCG specifically flags burnout and workload pressures in leaner-team environments, which becomes a leadership issue, not an HR issue.
2) Reskill and upskill for AI-enabled work
Not everyone needs to become a data scientist. But more roles now require baseline digital fluency and comfort working with AI-assisted processes.
3) Redesign org structures to reduce “single points of failure”
When a few senior people hold all the knowledge, teams become fragile. Leaders are building redundancy through documentation, mentorship, and clearer process ownership.
Planning takeaway: In 2026, the talent strategy is not just “fill roles.” It’s “protect critical capability,” especially where quality, regulatory, and manufacturing decisions directly control risk and timelines.
In life sciences, hiring rarely moves in a straight line. It moves in waves, and those waves are often triggered by investment cycles, M&A, licensing deals, and platform acquisitions.
PwC’s outlook points to strategic dealmaking accelerating in 2026, driven by a mix of innovation needs and improving stability.
EY reporting also highlights increased deal momentum, including a sharp rise in the potential value of deals aimed at accessing AI technology platforms.
That matters for talent because hiring priorities change depending on what the organization is buying, building, or integrating.
When investment activity rises, leaders tend to plan for two timelines at once:
Short-term: hire for execution speed
Long-term: build durable capability
This is also where workforce planning gets more disciplined. Instead of hiring optimistically and hoping the funding lasts, organizations are mapping roles to “value moments,” like:
Planning takeaway: In 2026, hiring plans are being stress-tested against investment scenarios: “If the deal closes late, what changes?” “If funding tightens, what roles are truly non-negotiable?”
Here’s the real reason leaders keep talking about AI, talent, and investment in the same breath:
You can see this tension even outside life sciences-specific research. Broader executive surveys show continued intent to increase AI investment, while talent shortages remain a major barrier to scaling AI and realizing ROI.
In other words: leaders aren’t prioritizing these because they’re trendy. They’re prioritizing them because they’re linked.
If you’re advising clients or building internal plans, these are the questions leadership teams are aligning on now:
2026 is less about bold predictions and more about execution discipline.
Leaders are prioritizing AI because it can meaningfully compress timelines and improve productivity. They’re prioritizing senior talent because complex science and regulated work still require judgment-heavy expertise. And they’re prioritizing investment-driven planning because funding and deal cycles keep shaping what’s possible, when.
If you want one sentence to anchor it: life sciences leaders in 2026 are trying to move faster without breaking compliance, culture, or cash flow.
Are life sciences companies increasing AI investment in 2026?
Executive research and reporting indicate AI is expected to play a major role in driving change and productivity, with continued momentum in AI investment and partnerships.
Why is senior talent still hard to hire in life sciences?
Specialized leadership roles in quality, regulatory, clinical operations, and advanced manufacturing remain scarce, and many high-judgment skills are difficult to automate.
How does M&A affect hiring plans in life sciences?
Dealmaking can trigger short-term hiring needs for integration and execution, and longer-term capability building depending on what assets or platforms are acquired.
© All rights reserved