5.5. Professor: Search Process

Department Head or CEO/President of the affiliated institution prepares a letter to the Dean addressing:

• Nature of the job and the criteria by which the final candidates should be judged with regard to needs in the research, clinical, teaching, and administrative domains, as appropriate
• Qualifications needed
• Composition, strengths, and weaknesses of the area and of the department
• Plans for the search (including appended list of proposed committee members on a separate page after the signatures)
• List of individuals regarded by the department as suitable candidates for the position may be appended. Ordinarily, no action on the part of the department should be taken to establish the credentials of these individuals at this time

For HMS/HSDM affiliates that have Senior Appointments Committees, the request should be reviewed and approved by that group. The Senior Appointments Committee will forward the approval to the search initiator who will upload the search request letter and the approval letter to the Harvard Faculty of Medicine Search Portal (https://facultyappointmentsportal.hms.harvard.edu) to be reviewed by the Dean’s office (Step 2)

For HMS/HSDM affiliates that do not have Senior Appointment Committees, the Department Head or CEO/President making the request should upload the search request letter to the Harvard Faculty of Medicine Search Portal (https://facultyappointmentsportal.hms.harvard.edu) to be reviewed by the Dean’s office (Step 2)

Search Committee holds initial meetings to accomplish the following:

• Review the strengths and weaknesses of the field within the discipline, within the Faculty of Medicine, and, if applicable, within the affiliated institution
• Review the present composition of the department
• Review the description of the position to be filled
• Define criteria by which candidates will be evaluated
• When appropriate (particularly for Department Head recruitments), receive a formal charge from institutional leaders such as the Dean/CEO/President/Department Head
• Review confidentiality requirements, the search process and unconscious bias information and training. This information is shared by the Dean’s office representative
• Develop or, if already developed, review, an advertisement for the position according to search best practices (see “Developing an advertisement” in Section 5.2)
• Hear witness testimony from inside and outside the department as appropriate
• Develop a plan for identifying the broadest possible pool of candidates according to search best practices, including generating names of potential candidates and a list of persons in the field to be consulted about names of potential candidates, including women and minorities. A list of sites for reaching a diverse pool of candidates will be provided to the Search Committee Chair
• Collect the names of candidates developed from all these sources and create a list of potential candidates
• Discuss a strategy for narrowing the list of potential candidates

• Solicit applications from all candidates on the list of potential candidates or solicit CVs from a subset of candidates (determined by committee discussion or other sources of information about the candidates including websites, personal knowledge of the candidates, and/or recommendations from leaders in the field)
• Evaluate candidate materials on the applicant list against position criteria and narrow the applicant list to the interview list of candidates according to search best practices (see Section 5.2)
• The number of candidates selected for interview (i.e., the interview list) varies, but typically ranges from 3-12. Candidates should be kept informed about their application status

First round (group) interviews

• Interview list candidates are invited to interview for the position
• Conduct interviews according to search best practices. The ultimate process is to be determined by the committee.
• Maintain consistency of the interview procedures across all candidates and minimize unconscious bias according to search best practices.
• The Committee should vote on the interview list candidates following a complete discussion of their strengths and weaknesses

At the end of the first round of interviews the Search Committee selects a subset of candidates, typically fewer than 6, usually for a second round of interviews.

The Search Committee may be the primary group responsible for conducting a second round of interviews, followed by further narrowing of the candidates to a short list, or may recommend that the hiring entity consider all names on the second-round interview list. Either way, the Committee determines its final selection(s) by concluding the discussion with a formal vote. Generally, a list of 2-4 names is forwarded to the CEO/President (for Department Head candidates) or the Department Head. References for candidates may be solicited after the first round, second round, or at the discretion of the hiring entity. The Search Committee’s recommendations are advisory to the Dean and to the hiring entity.

Department Head or CEO/President negotiates with final candidate:

• If an internal candidate is selected, a report of the search process is submitted to the OFA and the search is closed. The Committee takes no action regarding the faculty member’s academic appointment
• If an external candidate is selected, the offer letters to the candidate should make clear that appointment to rank is not assured and the candidate must be evaluated by the appropriate appointment committee at HMS/HSDM. Until rank is approved, the title of Member of the Faculty would be the appropriate holding appointment
• If an external candidate is selected and will be proposed for appointment at the rank of Professor, the Search Committee, with the assistance of the OFA, will solicit letters of evaluation as below (see Step 8)
• If an external candidate is selected and will be proposed for appointment at the rank of Associate Professor or below, the department will manage the preparation of the appointment package as for any individual recruited to an Assistant Professor or Associate Professor rank
• If none of the candidates identified through the Professorial search process is hired, additional candidates from the search process could be re-evaluated, the search could be re-launched or the recruiting institution could decide to have an interim or acting Department Head or other administrative hospital title and then initiate a new search process in the future
• If the search is closed, a new request must be submitted to the Dean to resume the search
• If the search is unsuccessful, goes on hiatus for a period of time of one (1) year or more and is resumed, a new advertisement will need to be placed according to the guidelines for advertising (see “Developing an advertisement” in Section 5.2)

If the Search Committee identifies a candidate from outside Harvard for potential appointment as Professor, the evaluation of the external candidate proceeds. The advice of the Search Committee regarding the appropriate rank is advisory to the Department Head or President/CEO. The Search Committee identifies the potential comparands and experts in the candidate’s field to provide letters of evaluation. No one who was on the long list (e.g., applicant) for the search should be asked to write a letter. The Search Committee also determines by what academic criteria the candidate should be evaluated.

The Search Committee Chair/Co-Chairs provides the following documents or information entered into the Faculty Search Portal:

• People asked to suggest possible candidates
• A signed end of search report according to search best practices (finalized after the letters of evaluation have been obtained)
• A signed letter detailing the candidate’s current/past activities to justify a professorial appointment (finalized after the letters of evaluation have been obtained); the letter will also attest to the candidate’s integrity and professionalism and will be signed by the Appointing Department Head or President/CEO in the case where the candidate is the Appointing Department Head.

These items are provided to the OFA:

• A recommended reviewers list outlining suggestions for letter writers and comparands. This list must be submitted on the appropriate Excel template. The list of comparable people should include 3-5 individuals (ideally at least one individual who was interviewed) and the list of letter writers should include 12-14 individuals (generally Professors) outside of HMS/HSDM including 1-2 senior faculty at the candidate’s prior institution and 1-2 individuals who are based outside of the United States. Most experts will be external to Harvard, but 1-2 evaluators from Harvard who hold the rank of Professor (not on the Search Committee) may be identified.
• Candidate’s CV in required Faculty of Medicine format (supplied by the candidate)
• Annotated ten (10) most significant scholarly works by the candidate plus PDFs of those works

The OFA reviews the list of proposed comparands and letter writers, solicits the letters on behalf of the Dean and Search Committee, and manages any follow-up communication needed. Once the letters and all other dossier components have been received, the dossier is compiled by the OFA and shared with the Search Committee, which votes for or against recommending a Professorial appointment for the candidate. If the vote is favorable, the Professorial evaluation process continues to the ad hoc search review. The end of search report is due at least two weeks in advance of the ad hoc Search Review Committee meeting.

If the vote is against a Professorial appointment, but is in favor of an Associate Professor appointment, the department submits an Associate Professor package to the OFA. The Search Committee takes no action regarding the faculty member’s appointment.