Interview scorecard template

General Admin interview scorecard

Evaluate General Admin candidates across 4 weighted areas: execution and reliability, improving the process, judgement and autonomy, and communication. Execution and reliability leads at 35%, so check throughput on real admin load: inbox triage volumes, diary management for multiple managers, invoice coding in Xero or QuickBooks, and how they tracked deadlines without. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
operations administrationcalendar managementcrm data entryinvoice processingoffice administration
TL;DR
For execution and reliability, look for evidence the candidate names daily volumes, tools such as Outlook, SharePoint or Asana, and a personal tracking system that kept nothing outstanding past deadline. For improving the process, look for evidence the candidate describes a specific process before and after, with a template, macro or shared tracker still in use and a measurable time saving. 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

Execution and reliability

35% weight

Check throughput on real admin load: inbox triage volumes, diary management for multiple managers, invoice coding in Xero or QuickBooks, and how they tracked deadlines without dropping items.

Evidence to listen for

  • Describes a workload they owned and how they kept it from slipping
  • Names the tools and systems they ran day to day
  • Can talk about volume: tickets, inboxes, orders, uptime
  • Nothing quietly falls through when they are busy

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot describe their own workload; things slip without them noticing.

2
Needs Improvement

Handles routine volume; drops work under pressure.

3
Satisfactory

Reliable on steady-state work; struggles when volume spikes.

4
Very Good

Consistently reliable at real volume with a system for staying on top.

5
Excellent

Names daily volumes, tools such as Outlook, SharePoint or Asana, and a personal tracking system that kept nothing outstanding past deadline.

02
Evaluation factor

Improving the process

25% weight

Probe one workflow they rebuilt: a filing structure, expense claim template, onboarding checklist, or mail merge that cut repeat work, plus hours or errors saved.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has changed a process rather than only following one
  • Can name what was slow or error-prone and what they did about it
  • Documents so the improvement survives them
  • Knows when a process is worth automating and when it is not

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Follows instructions only; no sense that process can change.

2
Needs Improvement

Notices problems but escalates rather than solving.

3
Satisfactory

Makes small improvements; impact is local and undocumented.

4
Very Good

Has redesigned a real process with measurable effect.

5
Excellent

Describes a specific process before and after, with a template, macro or shared tracker still in use and a measurable time saving.

03
Evaluation factor

Judgement and autonomy

25% weight

Assess where they act alone versus escalate: booking travel over budget, handling a supplier chasing payment, correcting a director's calendar clash, handling confidential HR files.

Evidence to listen for

  • Knows what to decide alone and what to escalate
  • Handles an exception without freezing or improvising recklessly
  • Protects confidentiality and access appropriately
  • Asks a clarifying question rather than guessing on something costly

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Either escalates everything or acts recklessly on their own.

2
Needs Improvement

Needs frequent direction; uneasy with exceptions.

3
Satisfactory

Sound judgement on familiar decisions.

4
Very Good

Clear sense of their own authority; handles exceptions well.

5
Excellent

Draws a clear line on spend limits and confidentiality, cites a decision made unsupervised and one correctly escalated with context attached.

04
Evaluation factor

Communication

15% weight

Judge how they write to senior staff, suppliers and colleagues: minute taking, chasing overdue approvals, and delivering awkward news like a cancelled booking.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes clearly enough that people act without a follow-up
  • Manages expectations before a deadline slips, not after
  • Handles a frustrated colleague or customer calmly
  • Works across time zones or async where the role needs it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Unclear written communication; goes quiet when things slip.

2
Needs Improvement

Communication needs chasing; raises problems late.

3
Satisfactory

Clear enough day to day; proactive updates are inconsistent.

4
Very Good

Clear, proactive, and calm under pressure.

5
Excellent

Gives crisp examples of minutes, chase emails and phone handling; tone shifts appropriately between director, vendor and new starter.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a General Admin

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

  1. 01

    What is your previous experience in an administrative role?

  2. 02

    Can you describe your experience with scheduling and managing correspondence?

  3. 03

    Are you familiar with office management systems and procedures?

  4. 04

    What software are you most comfortable using day to day?

  5. 05

    How do you prioritise when you are given several tasks at once?

See the complete General Admin 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