From the Deputy Director for Intramural Research

Faculty Recruitment in the Gray Zone

Striking the Right Balance Between Transparency and Discretion

BY NINA F. SCHOR, DDIR

Every year, the NIH recruits new faculty at every level. Many tenure-track faculty come to us through our Stadtman and Lasker Scholars searches. Others are recruited through IC-run searches, a process that also nets new staff scientists and staff clinicians and fills administrative leadership positions throughout our community.

When it comes to senior leadership-level searches, however, some NIH faculty perceive a sense of secrecy, and that sense leads to suspicion of inequity and unfairness. But we tread a very thin line between the need for discretion and the desire for transparency.

You can imagine the situation: If the names of candidates are released too early in the process, the word of their candidacies could get back to their institutions and colleagues before they have had a chance to convey that information. Worse, those who do not progress in the search process may become known as having been “rejected” by the search committee. Meanwhile, as the search committee is waiting for the 30 days of ad posting and other required processes to be completed, for everyone to review the applications, and for virtual interviews to be completed, the members of the IC’s IRP faculty are thinking nothing is happening.

Clearly, before finalists are chosen in any leadership search, the names of applicants, interviewees, and those serving as reference sources cannot and should not be released beyond the search committee. If such information gets out, we will quickly cease getting applications for leadership positions. But it is important to give the faculty, staff, and trainees in the IC for which the search is being conducted periodic updates on the progress of the process of the search to provide a sense of the momentum of the process.

Either the search committee chair—or, if the IC director thinks it unwise to release the name of the search committee chair, the IC director—should periodically speak at an IC IRP faculty meeting to indicate where in the search process the search committee is and give a general idea of the vigor of the outreach process and responsiveness of applicants to that process. Statements such as, “The search committee has reached out to both academia and industry, and to professional organizations and schools, that reach potential applicants across the demographic and scientific spectra,” or “Beginning early next month, the search committee will be conducting virtual interviews of its first round of qualified applicants. This group is quite diverse in many ways,” can go a long way toward assuring everyone that there is movement in filling the position and that attention is being given to maximizing the likelihood there is a diverse applicant pool.

I hope you can appreciate the complexity and sensitivity of the next steps for leadership-level searches. Here’s the gist, replete with potential pitfalls.

Once the first round of interviews is completed, those who are potential finalists should be told of their status and informed that the process of reference checking will subsequently begin, giving them a chance to let those likely to be referees hear from them, rather than hearing it for the first time from us. From this list will be derived the “short list” of finalists. Finalists for leadership positions should best be told that they will be asked to give a talk that includes both a summary of their own work and career, and their early-stage vision for the enterprise they might lead.

I usually say to finalists, “This part of the talk should be aimed at giving us an idea of your priorities and how you think and engage with people. We realize you may not yet know the whole landscape or the rules of government; if you are chosen for the position, you will not be held to the letter of what you present. Just tell us what, if we made you the leader today, you would think would be important to do in your first year and by your fifth year.”

The invitees to the talk should, at a minimum, include everyone in the IC’s IRP and allow for both in-person and virtual attendance. Finalists should optimally be onsite for this talk, as their visit should include meetings with PIs, administrative and scientific staff, tenure track and non-tenure track faculty, trainees, and, of course, the selecting official. This should be a mixture of individual and group meetings, as appropriate to the situation and position.

Optimally, feedback should be solicited anonymously from each person in the IC’s IRP and everyone that met (in person or virtually) with each of the finalists. Everyone polled should be asked whether they attended the talk and/or participated in an individual or group meeting with the finalist. The selecting official, upon reviewing all the data available, must then make a choice of to whom to make the first offer of the position. This information cannot be disclosed to anyone else at this point. Imagine what it would be like to have the “first choice” person turn down the offer and then have all the PIs in the IC know that the person ultimately chosen was the second or third choice of the selecting official.

The process of negotiation, Ethics Office vetting, salary setting, and identification of appropriate space takes weeks and sometimes months. All during this time, it may appear to the members of the IC that nothing is happening. Again, just imagine being the lead candidate, provisionally accepting the position, having your acceptance announced, and then having the Ethics Office decide, for example, that your spouse’s current employment or investments preclude your federal employment. Confidentiality must be maintained, and the substance of the negotiation and the identity of the finalist with whom the negotiation is taking place must not be revealed to the public.

As with any complex process that includes the need for confidentiality, ethical conduct, and human interaction, there are guardrails around the process of leadership recruitment. But there is much that can be done to balance those imperatives with ensuring that those inside NIH have a sense that something important is moving apace and the best interests of science, people, and the NIH are prominent parts of the equation.