Why pre-screen research executive assistants before the interview
This desk sits between grant deadlines that do not move, committee papers that must be right, and information about people and unpublished work that should not circulate. Assistants worth hiring understand enough about the research process to anticipate what is needed, and know exactly what they never repeat. A short screen asks about a deadline that could not move and how they protected it.
What actually matters when screening Research Executive Assistant candidates
- 01
Execution and reliability
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.
- 02
Improving the process
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.
- 03
Judgement and autonomy
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.
- 04
Communication
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.
Pre-screening questions to ask Research Executive Assistant candidates
12 questions grouped by what they test. Ask the same set in every screen and score answers on a consistent scale, or send them as an async video screen and compare answers side by side.
Who they supported
3 questions01How have you supported senior leaders in previous roles?
Listen forSeniority and scope described, with what they handled independently rather than on instruction.
Support described as administrative tasks, or scope that never included judgement.
02How proficient are you at scheduling and coordinating meetings and events?
Listen forCommittees and events coordinated across busy diaries, with papers circulated in good time.
Meetings arranged without preparation time, or papers issued the night before.
03Describe your experience facilitating communication between departments.
Listen forActing as a reliable point of contact, with follow-through that people came to depend on.
Communication described as forwarding messages, or requests dropped between departments.
Understands research
3 questions04What is your experience working in a research environment?
Listen forFamiliarity with grant cycles, ethics approval and how research offices actually operate.
No exposure to research administration, or academic processes assumed to be like business ones.
05Do you have experience supporting grant applications or funded projects?
Listen forApplications supported to deadline, with funder requirements and reporting obligations both known.
Grant work unfamiliar, or funder deadlines treated as flexible.
06What does research integrity mean to you in a support role?
Listen forAwareness that records, authorship and data handling all matter, with a duty to raise concerns.
Integrity described as somebody else's responsibility, or record keeping treated as routine filing.
Accurate with documents
3 questions07Can you discuss your experience preparing and editing technical documents?
Listen forDocuments produced accurately including references and formatting, with content checked not just typed.
Editing limited to formatting, or errors passed through because the content was unfamiliar.
08What is your experience with collecting and organising data?
Listen forData handled carefully with version control, and figures checked before they are circulated.
Multiple versions of a spreadsheet in circulation, or figures forwarded without checking.
09How proficient are you with office and spreadsheet software?
Listen forCompetence beyond basics, including formulas and formatting for reports that go to committees.
Skills limited to typing documents, or reluctance to work with numbers at all.
Discretion holds
3 questions10Describe handling confidential information in a previous role.
Listen forClear categories they never discuss, including personnel matters and any unpublished results.
Confidentiality described generally, or examples that reveal something they should not.
11How would you handle competing deadlines from several senior people?
Listen forPriorities decided against known deadlines, with everyone told what will happen and when.
Requests handled in arrival order, or conflicts escalated without a proposed resolution.
12What steps do you take to ensure accuracy in your work?
Listen forA checking routine applied consistently, especially for documents going outside the organisation.
Accuracy described as care, or no separate check before external documents are issued.
How to score responses
Score every candidate on the same four criteria immediately after the screen. At this stage you are shortlisting for panel interviews, not making the final call.
Execution and reliability
35%5Names the systems used (Cayuse, InfoEd, Kuali, Workday), and describes juggling proposal cutoffs with a moving executive calendar without missed dates.
Improving the process
25%5Points to a specific artefact they created and the time or error reduction it produced across a research office's recurring workload.
Judgement and autonomy
25%5Draws a clear line between decisions made independently and matters escalated to the VPR, citing confidentiality and records retention constraints.
Communication
15%5Shows tact chasing senior faculty, drafts crisp memos and minutes in the VP's voice, and confirms outcomes in writing.
Grant deadlines do not move and unpublished work should not circulate. A one-way video screen tests both.
Try it on HirevireScreening FAQ
Process basics
How long should a pre-screening round for this role take?
Ten to fifteen minutes across eight to ten questions, answered async. Enough to establish who they supported, test their accuracy with documents, and check their discretion and workload handling.
How much research knowledge is actually needed?
Enough to understand grant cycles, ethics approval and why an unpublished result is sensitive. Without that grounding, the role becomes diary management with constant escalation upwards.
Evaluating answers
What is the strongest signal when screening this role?
A hard deadline they protected. Strong assistants describe working backwards and chasing contributors early. Anyone who describes deadlines as tight has been reactive rather than in control.
How do I judge their discretion?
Ask what kinds of information they would never discuss. Real answers cover personnel matters, unpublished results and funding decisions. Vagueness here is a genuine risk in a research office.
Go deeper on this role
Sanat has been hiring since 2012 and watching the recruitment industry change up close ever since, and turned that screening process into Hirevire's video screening platform. LinkedIn
