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
Subject and technical command
30% weight
Check command of Scrum, Kanban and scaling frameworks (SAFe, LeSS): WIP limits, flow metrics, story slicing, Definition of Done, plus certifications like CSP-SC, PSM III or ICP-ACC.
Evidence to listen for
Knows the material or discipline well beyond the level they teach
Holds the qualifications, licences, or certifications required, and they are current
Can answer an unexpected question honestly rather than bluffing
Keeps learning in their own field
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Knowledge barely ahead of the learners; bluffs when asked something unexpected.
2
Needs Improvement
Adequate on the syllabus only; gaps show under questioning.
3
Satisfactory
Solid command of the material for the level taught.
4
Very Good
Depth well beyond the taught level; comfortable being asked anything.
5
Excellent
Explains flow metrics such as cycle time and throughput, names framework trade-offs, and cites where they deliberately broke a framework rule.
02
Evaluation factor
How they actually teach
30% weight
Probe their actual coaching stance: how they run a liberating structures workshop, coach a Product Owner on backlog refinement, or move a team from prescriptive training to self-organisation.
Evidence to listen for
Describes how they teach a specific thing, not their philosophy of teaching
Adapts when the first explanation does not land
Checks understanding rather than assuming it
Differentiates for varying ability within one group
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Only philosophy, no method; one explanation and no plan B.
2
Needs Improvement
Delivers content but cannot adapt when learners are lost.
3
Satisfactory
Sound instruction; differentiation is limited.
4
Very Good
Multiple routes to the same concept, with real checks for understanding.
5
Excellent
Describes a concrete coaching arc for a named team, using questions and experiments rather than mandates, with visible behaviour change over sprints.
03
Evaluation factor
Group management and safeguarding
25% weight
Assess facilitation of hard rooms: heated retrospectives, a dominant tech lead, a manager sitting in on standups, and how they protect psychological safety and surface conflict.
Evidence to listen for
Has a concrete approach to a disruptive individual and a whole group losing focus
Knows the safeguarding or duty-of-care obligations for this age group and setting
Escalates a concern through the right channel
Sets boundaries without becoming punitive
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No behaviour strategy; unaware of safeguarding obligations.
2
Needs Improvement
Struggles with disruption; vague on duty of care.
3
Satisfactory
Manages a normal group; less confident with serious disruption.
4
Very Good
Confident group management with clear safeguarding awareness.
5
Excellent
Recounts a specific tense retro or dysfunctional team, names the facilitation technique used, and describes how the conflict was made discussable.
04
Evaluation factor
Progress and communication
15% weight
Look for evidence of change: escaped defects, lead time, predictability or engagement scores before and after, plus how they reported progress to sponsors and leadership.
Evidence to listen for
Measures whether learners actually improved, not just attended
Gives feedback that changes what someone does next
Communicates with parents, clients, or managers about difficult progress honestly
Records progress usefully
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No sense of whether anyone improved.
2
Needs Improvement
Tracks attendance rather than progress; avoids hard conversations.
3
Satisfactory
Monitors progress; feedback is general.
4
Very Good
Measures progress concretely and handles difficult conversations well.
5
Excellent
Cites baseline and post-engagement numbers for named teams, and shows how they handed off ownership rather than becoming permanently required.
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.
