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 which foresight engagements changed a client decision: scenario sets adopted into strategic plans, horizon scans that triggered R&D funding, published reports, keynotes, or board briefings with named outcomes.
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
Cites specific scenario or roadmap work a named organisation acted on, with the resulting investment, product, or policy shift.
02
Evaluation factor
Strategic judgement
25% weight
Probe their method toolkit: STEEP or STEEPLE scanning, Three Horizons, cross-impact matrices, Delphi panels, backcasting, wildcard and weak-signal analysis, and how they avoid single-future prediction.
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
Names methods used on real projects, explains why each suited the question, and distinguishes plausible scenarios from forecasts.
03
Evaluation factor
Building and leading teams
25% weight
Assess how they run foresight with others: facilitating scenario workshops with executives, briefing expert panels, coaching internal strategy teams to keep scanning after the engagement ends.
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 workshops they designed and facilitated, plus scanning capability they left behind inside a client or employer team.
04
Evaluation factor
Influence across the business
15% weight
Judge how they move sceptical operators: translating weak signals into implications for budgets, hiring, and product roadmaps without jargon, and handling pushback that scenarios are speculative.
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
Turns signals into concrete near-term choices, names implications by function, and answers scepticism with evidence rather than futurist vocabulary.
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.
