leadership strategydata governancedata platform modernisationenterprise data strategygdpr compliance
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 actually delivered as a data leader: master data management rollouts, warehouse migrations, governance councils stood up, and measurable gains in data quality or reporting cycle time.
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 owned programmes with figures: catalogue coverage, reduction in reconciliation breaks, decommissioned legacy warehouses, and the business value each unlocked.
02
Evaluation factor
Strategic judgement
25% weight
Probe how they chose between build and buy on platforms like Snowflake, Databricks or Fabric, and how they sequenced governance, literacy and AI ambitions against budget reality.
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
Explains a multi-year data roadmap with sequencing logic, rejected options, and honest reflection on where the strategy had to bend.
03
Evaluation factor
Building and leading teams
25% weight
Assess how they built the function: data stewards, engineering, governance and analytics reporting lines, hiring for scarce skills, and retaining people through reorganisations.
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
Describes team structures they designed, stewardship models embedded in business units, and named individuals they grew into senior data roles.
04
Evaluation factor
Influence across the business
15% weight
Look for evidence of influence with the CFO, CISO and regulators: GDPR or BCBS 239 obligations, board-level data risk reporting, and winning over reluctant business owners.
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
Cites board papers, regulator interactions and specific sceptics converted, showing data policy adopted without executive mandate alone.
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.
