Interview scorecard template

CEO interview scorecard

Evaluate CEO candidates across 4 weighted areas: record of outcomes, strategic judgement, building and leading teams, and influence across the business. Record of outcomes leads at 35%, so check what they owned: revenue scale, EBITDA movement, headcount, funding rounds closed or exits. Ask for before and after numbers on the P&L they. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
leadership strategyboard governanceexecutive leadershipp&l ownershipturnaround
TL;DR
For record of outcomes, look for evidence the candidate names specific revenue, margin and cash figures across a defined tenure, and separates inherited momentum from decisions they personally made. For strategic judgement, look for evidence the candidate walks through a costly strategic call with the rejected alternatives named, and states plainly where the thesis proved wrong. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

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

Record of outcomes

35% weight

Check what they owned: revenue scale, EBITDA movement, headcount, funding rounds closed or exits. Ask for before and after numbers on the P&L they signed for.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names organisations, budgets, and headcount they were actually accountable for
  • Gives outcomes with numbers, not initiatives with adjectives
  • Separates what they drove from what the market or a predecessor did
  • Can describe something they owned that failed

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Titles and initiatives only; no accountable outcomes.

2
Needs Improvement

Claims results the organisation would have had anyway; no scope clarity.

3
Satisfactory

Real accountability with some numbers; attribution occasionally generous.

4
Very Good

Clear scope and measured outcomes, including an honest failure.

5
Excellent

Names specific revenue, margin and cash figures across a defined tenure, and separates inherited momentum from decisions they personally made.

02
Evaluation factor

Strategic judgement

25% weight

Probe one pivot, market entry or shutdown they chose: the options considered, the data behind it, and what the three year plan looked like versus outcome.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains a decision where the options were genuinely close and the information incomplete
  • Can say what they chose not to do and why
  • Distinguishes a bet from a certainty
  • Changes course on evidence rather than defending a position past its life

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Frameworks and slogans; no real decision they can walk through.

2
Needs Improvement

Describes decisions made elsewhere; cannot state the trade-off.

3
Satisfactory

Sound judgement on familiar decisions; less tested on ambiguous ones.

4
Very Good

Walks a genuinely close call, states what they gave up, and changed course on evidence.

5
Excellent

Walks through a costly strategic call with the rejected alternatives named, and states plainly where the thesis proved wrong.

03
Evaluation factor

Building and leading teams

25% weight

Assess how they built the executive bench: CFO or CRO hires made, exits handled, succession planning, and how they ran operating cadence and comp decisions.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has hired, developed, and where necessary removed people
  • Names someone who grew under them and what they did to cause it
  • Handles an underperformer directly rather than waiting it out
  • Builds a team that functions when they are not in the room

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No real people leadership; avoids difficult personnel decisions.

2
Needs Improvement

Managed a team but cannot describe developing or exiting anyone.

3
Satisfactory

Competent manager; development is informal.

4
Very Good

Demonstrable record of growing people and handling underperformance directly.

5
Excellent

Cites executives they hired and later promoted or removed, with the specific performance signals that triggered each move.

04
Evaluation factor

Influence across the business

15% weight

Test board and investor handling: how they managed a difficult board meeting, covenant breach, activist shareholder, or bad news disclosure to staff and customers.

Evidence to listen for

  • Wins support from peers and boards without positional authority
  • Translates their function into terms the rest of the business cares about
  • Delivers unwelcome news early
  • Manages up without either capitulating or stonewalling

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Relies entirely on authority; conceals bad news.

2
Needs Improvement

Struggles to influence peers; communicates in function-specific jargon.

3
Satisfactory

Works adequately with peers and leadership.

4
Very Good

Persuades peers and boards on merit and delivers bad news early.

5
Excellent

Describes carrying a board through unwelcome news with a concrete plan, and shows how they aligned investors, regulators and employees behind it.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a CEO

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Can you describe your experience leading an organisation at scale?

  2. 02

    Describe how you have improved an organisation's financial performance.

  3. 03

    Can you provide an example of a significant achievement in your career?

  4. 04

    What approach do you use to set and implement strategy?

  5. 05

    Can you explain how you led an organisation through significant change?

See the complete CEO question set
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.

Explore AI Scorecards