5.2. Guidance on Key Recruitment Processes/Search Best Practices

• FSP: Faculty Search Portal is an online platform used to track searches for faculty appointments at affiliate hospitals and research institutes
• ARIeS: Academic Recruiting Information System is an online platform specifically used for tracking searches related to Harvard-paid academic positions.  It covers recruitment for Basic Science and Social Science Departments and positions at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine
• IAA: An Instructor, Assistant Professor, and/or Associate Professor search focuses on candidates at these specific ranks
• Professorial search: This type of search aims to identify candidates for an appointment as a Professor or Associate Professor
• Applicant list: The applicant list consists of candidates who formally apply for a faculty position.  These individuals express interest in the role and meet the minimum essential criteria set by the search committee.
• Interview list: Candidates on the interview list are invited to participate in interviews for the position.  This stage may involve multiple rounds of interviews to assess their suitability
• Short list: The short list comprises candidates who are recommended to the hiring authority.  These individuals are considered to be the top contenders for the position
• End of Search Report: A report that outlines the search process and explicitly details the efforts made by the search committee in constructing the list of applicants and narrowing down the pool. This report provides transparency and clarity regarding the steps taken during the faculty search process.

• Search Committee Chair/Co-Chairs: The chair or co-chairs must set the timeline for the meetings, facilitate meetings, engage with key stakeholders to gather insights on the position, and relay information to the committee. They are also tasked with finalizing the advertisement, responding to inquiries from potential candidates, updating the hiring authority on the search’s status, and distributing responsibilities among committee members, such as collecting and evaluating applications, assigning questions during group interviews, and hosting candidates for in-person interviews.
• Search Committee Members: Search committee members are expected to understand the needs of the hiring authority for the new position, review and discuss the position description, identify and encourage applications from potential candidates, review applications, conduct interviews, and recommend the most suitable applicants. This role requires a commitment to equity and confidentiality throughout the entire search process.
• Search Committee Administrator: The search administrator is essential for the operations of the faculty search process. They collaborate with the search committee chair or co-chairs to manage the scheduling of meetings and interviews (virtual and in-person), and manage the job posting. They provide logistical support that enables the search to progress from the application stage to the final decision. In the case of IAA searches, the administrator establishes a secure system, such as Dropbox, for distributing candidate materials to the committee, thereby safeguarding confidentiality. For professorial searches, the OFA will set up a DropBox folder. The search administrator is also responsible for ensuring that all stages of the recruitment process are properly documented in the Faculty Search Portal.
• Hiring authority: The hiring authority (e.g., CEO, Department Head, Division Chief) is responsible for charging the committee with a description of the institutional needs to be addressed by the position, the absolute and desired qualifications and competencies to be included in the position description, the anticipated timeline, and the scope of the committee’s work. The hiring authority may also present their vision for the ideal candidate, the relative merits of technical expertise versus leadership experience in the ideal candidate, resources available for the position, and any specific needs or preferences for receiving the short list of candidates (e.g., unranked list of 2-4 candidates).

To ensure that the pool is sufficiently broad, the search committee should explicitly make efforts to include candidates who are women and individuals from historically underrepresented groups in medicine (URiM). Strategies may include:

• Consulting field leaders regarding potential candidates
• Contacting national professional/specialty societies or organizations: The OFA maintains a list of organizations for reaching a diverse pool of candidates. Other ways to identify potential candidates are through conferences and listservs that may help tap into diverse networks.
• Reaching out proactively to women and minority leaders in the field: Active recruitment of candidates by search committee members is crucial, and personal phone calls and personalized emails to potential candidates are very effective in encouraging interest in the position.
• Addressing unconscious bias: The committee should be aware of unconscious bias in the evaluation process and should consider all aspects of diversity, which may include lived experiences, work style, geographic regions, new fields or technologies

Effective advertising is crucial for attracting a broad pool of candidates and the posting must comply with institutional and government regulations. This section clarifies how to create an advertisement that appeals widely and aligns with legal and institutional standards, laying the groundwork for fair and lawful hiring practices.

• Submission and approval: Advertisements must be submitted to the Office for Faculty Affairs (OFA) via the Faculty Search Portal (FSP) or ARIeS (if appropriate) for approval before posting. Advertisements, once approved, remain valid for one year. If the search for candidates is still active after this period, the OFA must review the advertisement again, and it may need to be reposted.
• Minimum requirements: The advertisement must list the minimum qualifications for the position (e.g., terminal degree, board certification) and relevant employment details. For affiliate-based recruitments, the advertisement should clearly indicate that Harvard Medical School or Harvard University is not the employer. 
• Rank specification: Advertisements for ladder faculty positions must clearly state the potential rank(s), which can include Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and/or Professor. Listing a wide range of ranks can generate confusion about the position, especially if the committee seeks candidates with a national reputation. If the search aims to fill a position where the candidate may be evaluated for the rank of Professor, a professorial search process must be initiated, which differs from an IAA search, and the advertisement should mention the desired rank(s) (e.g., Professor and Associate Professor).
• Employment type: Specify whether the position is part-time or full-time. Keep in mind that full-time employment may not necessarily equate to a full-time academic appointment based on eligibility policies.
• Broad wording: Ensure the position is described broadly enough to allow for multiple candidates to qualify. Avoid gendered or other forms of biased language that may deter highly qualified candidates.
• Expectations for faculty appointments: Include teaching and/or mentoring expectations within the advertisement.
• Equal opportunity language should be included in all advertisements
• Ad posting location and duration:
  • For IAA searches, the advertisement must be posted for at least 30 days in print or electronic journals and/or websites deemed to be the accepted professional site for advertising academic positions in the discipline (e.g., professional society job boards) to reach the broadest, nationally representative, and most appropriate pool of candidates. Postings made through external marketing companies/job board networks may also be acceptable, so long as a list of all downstream ad placements are described. Documentation of ad placement must be included among the materials saved in the Faculty Search Portal.
  • For professorial searches, the advertisement must be posted for at least 30 days in print or electronic journals. There is also an expectation that the ad be posted with an organization that would reach specific underrepresented groups so as to broaden the pool of candidates.
• Submission Instructions: Clearly state the required materials candidates should submit (e.g., CV, letters of interest/cover letters, teaching/mentoring philosophies). Indicate how candidates should submit their materials (e.g., employer tracking system or email address) and where inquiries should be directed (e.g., search committee chair/co-chairs). Avoid including a mailing address to prevent hard copy submissions.
• Logo Use and Placement: The use and placement of affiliate logos and the HMS/HSDM tag must adhere to HMS Use of Name policies. For HMS affiliate positions, distinct “HMS affiliate” or “HMS teaching hospital” logos are available and should be placed separate from the affiliate logo, at the bottom of the advertisement. No additional logos beyond the affiliate institution and HMS logos should be displayed.

Narrowing the pool of candidates will focus the search committee’s efforts on individuals who meet the position’s requirements and uphold the Faculty of Medicine’s standards and values. Strategies for streamlining the candidate list effectively and focusing on the best matches for the advertised role include:

• Developing evaluation criteria: Before reviewing CVs and cover letters, the search committee should establish a set of criteria to assess candidates.  Beyond publications and grant funding, the committee may consider teaching/mentoring ability and alignment with departmental goals.  The committee should consider both past accomplishments and academic trajectory, including the potential for future growth.
• Candidate evaluation: Committee members should evaluate all candidates or a subset thereof, depending on the total number of applicants. One approach at this stage of narrowing the pool is to have committee members assign rankings of A (strong interest), B (possible consideration), C (do not interview) and to provide comments.
• Candidate discussion: Each viable candidate must be discussed. In some instances, 1-2 pre-assigned committee members may present each candidate, after which the candidates are ranked based on these presentations. The committee should use consistent standards and expectations for all.
• Reviewing borderline candidates: The committee should also consider candidates who are at or slightly below the cutoff point to determine if they possess unique skills or experiences that could enhance the diversity and richness of the interview pool.
• Voting on interview list candidates: After a thorough discussion of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, the committee should vote on the interview list
• Overlap of interview list and short list: If the applicant pool is small enough, the candidates on the interview list and the short list may be the same
• Candidate confidentiality/search transparency: During the early stages of the search, candidates expect their candidacy to remain private and limited to search committee members. If the candidate advances to meeting with stakeholders, they still expect that their candidacy is not broadcast broadly so as not to jeopardize their current positions. While the names of the candidates are confidential, conducting the search process in a manner that is open and clear to all stakeholders is also important. This may include keeping stakeholders informed about the search process, criteria, and timelines.
• Documentation: Thorough records should be maintained in the Faculty Search Portal or ARIeS at all stages of the search process, including recording applicant information and summarizing the committee’s decisions and rationale for each candidate on the Interview List. This information will be critical in generating the End of Search Report. 

Video and in-person interviews serve as critical junctures in the faculty search process, offering a platform to assess a candidate’s qualifications beyond what is in the CV and cover letter and to showcase the institution’s strengths. Best practices for these interviews prioritize creating structured exchanges that yield insightful feedback for informed decision-making and allowing candidates the opportunity to ask questions of search committee members, while maintaining consistency of experience across applicants. The specific interview process will be determined by the committee and may include these options:

• First round (group) interviews: All qualified candidates should have an initial virtual interview with the entire committee before being invited for an in-person interview. A variation of this is called “Rapid Cycle Interviews” where candidates participate in interviews over a 2-3-day window; each candidate will have a 45-50-minute interview with the entire search committee in rapid succession.
• Second round (individual) interviews: Candidates should meet individually with members of the search committee, either virtually or in person. Candidates for second round interviews should be selected for inclusion on this list, rather than excluded from it. Sometimes circumstances necessitate bringing the candidates to campus without holding a virtual interview. If so, the entire committee should be convened for a group interview with the candidate
• In-person visits: When bringing candidates to campus, aim for consistency in stakeholder interactions. If scheduling difficulties may prevent the same individuals from meeting all candidates, consider the following approach:
  • Broad representation: Ensure that various stakeholders (e.g., senior leaders, trainees, department members) meet all candidates.
  • Candidate preferences: To enhance the experience, ask candidates about specific individuals they would like to meet (e.g., potential collaborators).
• Minimizing unconscious bias: To maintain consistency across candidates and support an equitable search, consider the following strategies:
  • Include a set list of questions for all candidates to address during interviews based on the competencies outlined in the position description. Often, these questions are distributed among committee members before the interview and each committee member asks the same question of each candidate if multiple candidates are interviewed back-to-back.  Follow-up prompts are encouraged if a candidate does not answer the question or provides a vague answer.
  • The committee should use behavioral questions, which prompt candidates to shared examples of situations they have been in that are relevant to the position (e.g., ethical dilemmas, managing conflict)
  • Candidates should never be asked questions aimed at determining age, marital/partner status, caregiving responsibilities, gender or gender identity, race/ethnicity/ancestry, sexual orientation, membership in nonprofessional organizations, birthplace, disability, or religion.
• An online evaluation form (e.g., Qualtrics, Microsoft Forms) should be used to collect interviewer feedback, with items directed at competencies relevant to the position and observable during interviews. Typical approaches include using Likert (i.e., agree-disagree) scales, free-text comment fields, and a final question about whether to advance the candidate to the next step. The evaluation should be independently completed by each committee member or stakeholder during and/or immediately after meeting with the candidate, without input from other members. Committee members should also be reminded to refrain from relying solely on gut reactions, hearsay, or other factors not part of the evaluation rubric, as these can introduce bias.

The end of search report describes the steps taken during the faculty search process.  The report is reviewed by the OFA and, depending on the rank of the proposed appointment, may be reviewed by an promotion committee, the Dean’s office, and Harvard University.  Thorough documentation in the Faculty Search Portal or ARIeS is essential to ensure transparency and accountability in the search process.  The end of search report is required to close out a search.

The key components are:

• Background/rationale for search: A brief statement (2-3 sentences) should outline the departmental need for the faculty position and the essential characteristics of the desired candidate(s).
• Search committee members: Information for all members of the search committee, including name, title, and institution along with aggregate demographic data (e.g., gender and URiM status) if not already in the system (e.g., Harvard faculty member or employee)
• Description of advertisement, diversity and recruitment efforts: A paragraph should describe the process and strategies utilized by the committee to reach the broadest possible pool of applicants, including consultation with experts in the field, communication with individuals via email or phone calls, outreach to organizations and networks, or other efforts made by committee members to publicize the role.
• Applicant list to Interview List narrative: A paragraph should describe the candidate evaluation process and the rationale for why particular candidates were invited to interview with the committee.
• Interview list to Short List narrative: A paragraph should describe the outcome of the interview process and providing rationale for why particular candidates were advanced to the Short List.
• Applicant, Interview, and Short List numbers by gender and race: A data table will be automatically generated in the Faculty Search Portal that highlights key demographic characteristics of the applicant pool and final candidates.
• Comparison of candidates on the Short List and final candidate narrative: A paragraph should describe the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Short List candidates as well as the rationale for why the final candidate(s) were selected.
• Advertisement: A copy of the final version of the advertisement text should be provided, as well as a screenshot or scanned image (with date stamp) demonstrating placement of the approved advertisement in an appropriate journal or website. An invoice showing proof of payment for a 30-day posting is also required, but will not be included in the final end of search report.

When the hiring authority is unable to hire someone for a position, an end of search report is still required to officially close out the search. The narrative on the final candidate should instead include provide details from the search chair, co-chair or committee members about the efforts made to hire individuals from the short list. This documentation ensures proper closure of the search process.