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 they can explain phishing, BEC, MFA fatigue and social engineering accurately, and name frameworks they map training to: NIST 800-50, ISO 27001 Annex A, SANS Security Awareness Maturity Model.
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 current attacker tradecraft correctly and ties each module to a named control, standard or audit requirement without prompting.
02
Evaluation factor
How they actually teach
30% weight
Probe how they run sessions: onboarding inductions, lunch-and-learn formats, tabletop exercises, gamified modules in KnowBe4 or Proofpoint, and how they adapt content for developers versus finance staff.
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 specific session designs and role-tailored content, with concrete examples of reworking material after learners disengaged.
03
Evaluation factor
Group management and safeguarding
25% weight
Assess control of mixed rooms including sceptical engineers and senior executives, plus handling of staff who disclose real incidents or personal data mid-session.
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
Handles resistance without shaming, escalates disclosed incidents to the security team properly, and keeps large virtual cohorts participating.
04
Evaluation factor
Progress and communication
15% weight
Look for metrics they owned: phish-prone percentage, click and report rates, completion rates, time to report, and how they briefed leadership or auditors on trends.
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
Quotes before and after numbers from campaigns they ran and links behaviour change to specific training or nudge interventions.
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.
