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
Ask what they actually transformed: ERP or CRM migrations, RPA rollouts, legacy decommissioning. Push for cycle time cut, adoption rates, licence spend saved, and go-live dates.
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 programmes with baseline and post-launch numbers: adoption percentages, hours automated, systems retired, budget against forecast.
02
Evaluation factor
Strategic judgement
25% weight
Probe how they sequenced a roadmap: build versus buy calls, pilot before enterprise rollout, which legacy processes they refused to digitise and why.
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 trade-offs behind phasing and platform selection, including a deliberate decision to kill or delay a workstream.
03
Evaluation factor
Building and leading teams
25% weight
Explore how they ran the change side: business process owners, super-user networks, resistance from middle management, upskilling plans, and vendor or systems integrator management.
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 building cross-functional squads and champion networks, with concrete handling of a team or department that pushed back.
04
Evaluation factor
Influence across the business
15% weight
Test how they won over finance, operations, and a sceptical board: business cases, benefits realisation tracking, steering committee reporting, and negotiating for shared IT resource.
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
Gives evidence of securing funding with a defensible business case and later reporting realised versus promised benefits honestly.
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.
