Interview scorecard template

Entrepreneur in Residence interview scorecard

Evaluate Entrepreneur in Residence 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 actually built: revenue, users, funding raised, and what happened to the company in the end. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
leadership strategyentrepreneur in residencefounderstartupventure building
TL;DR
For record of outcomes, look for evidence the candidate has built something real with numbers attached, and is honest about how it ended, including a failure they own. For strategic judgement, look for evidence the candidate validates and kills ideas on evidence with a real example of each, rather than persisting on conviction alone. 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 actually built: revenue, users, funding raised, and what happened to the company in the end.

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

Has built something real with numbers attached, and is honest about how it ended, including a failure they own.

02
Evaluation factor

Strategic judgement

25% weight

Test how they choose which idea to pursue and, more tellingly, how they decide to kill one.

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

Validates and kills ideas on evidence with a real example of each, rather than persisting on conviction alone.

03
Evaluation factor

Building and leading teams

25% weight

Assess whether they can hire and lead a small team, or only operate as a solo builder.

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

Has hired and led a founding team, including exiting an early hire who was wrong for the stage.

04
Evaluation factor

Influence across the business

15% weight

Judge how they work inside someone else's organisation, where they have influence but not control.

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

Operates effectively without founder authority, bringing stakeholders along instead of going around them.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Entrepreneur in Residence

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

  1. 01

    Describe the entrepreneurial projects you have completed. What were the numbers?

  2. 02

    How did your ventures affect the businesses you were involved with?

  3. 03

    Have you had a startup fail? What actually went wrong?

  4. 04

    What is your experience raising money for a startup? What did you raise and from whom?

  5. 05

    What steps do you take to validate a business idea before committing to it?

See the complete Entrepreneur in Residence 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