Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Execution and reliability
35% weight
Check how they held a VP-level calendar against hard sponsor deadlines: NSF or NIH submission dates, IRB and IACUC agendas, Concur travel, and Faculty Senate or trustee briefings.
Evidence to listen for
Describes a workload they owned and how they kept it from slipping
Names the tools and systems they ran day to day
Can talk about volume: tickets, inboxes, orders, uptime
Nothing quietly falls through when they are busy
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot describe their own workload; things slip without them noticing.
2
Needs Improvement
Handles routine volume; drops work under pressure.
3
Satisfactory
Reliable on steady-state work; struggles when volume spikes.
4
Very Good
Consistently reliable at real volume with a system for staying on top.
5
Excellent
Names the systems used (Cayuse, InfoEd, Kuali, Workday), and describes juggling proposal cutoffs with a moving executive calendar without missed dates.
02
Evaluation factor
Improving the process
25% weight
Probe process fixes they built: proposal routing checklists, shared deadline trackers, standing agenda templates for research council meetings, or cleaner onboarding for new faculty PIs.
Evidence to listen for
Has changed a process rather than only following one
Can name what was slow or error-prone and what they did about it
Documents so the improvement survives them
Knows when a process is worth automating and when it is not
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Follows instructions only; no sense that process can change.
2
Needs Improvement
Notices problems but escalates rather than solving.
3
Satisfactory
Makes small improvements; impact is local and undocumented.
4
Very Good
Has redesigned a real process with measurable effect.
5
Excellent
Points to a specific artefact they created and the time or error reduction it produced across a research office's recurring workload.
03
Evaluation factor
Judgement and autonomy
25% weight
Assess handling of confidential material: pre-award budgets, research misconduct or conflict-of-interest files, personnel actions, and requests they routed rather than answered themselves.
Evidence to listen for
Knows what to decide alone and what to escalate
Handles an exception without freezing or improvising recklessly
Protects confidentiality and access appropriately
Asks a clarifying question rather than guessing on something costly
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Either escalates everything or acts recklessly on their own.
2
Needs Improvement
Needs frequent direction; uneasy with exceptions.
3
Satisfactory
Sound judgement on familiar decisions.
4
Very Good
Clear sense of their own authority; handles exceptions well.
5
Excellent
Draws a clear line between decisions made independently and matters escalated to the VPR, citing confidentiality and records retention constraints.
04
Evaluation factor
Communication
15% weight
Look for how they write to deans, principal investigators, sponsor program officers, and finance staff; ask about drafting on the VP's behalf and chasing overdue faculty submissions.
Evidence to listen for
Writes clearly enough that people act without a follow-up
Manages expectations before a deadline slips, not after
Handles a frustrated colleague or customer calmly
Works across time zones or async where the role needs it
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Unclear written communication; goes quiet when things slip.
2
Needs Improvement
Communication needs chasing; raises problems late.
3
Satisfactory
Clear enough day to day; proactive updates are inconsistent.
4
Very Good
Clear, proactive, and calm under pressure.
5
Excellent
Shows tact chasing senior faculty, drafts crisp memos and minutes in the VP's voice, and confirms outcomes in writing.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
