Interview scorecard template

Growth Assistant interview scorecard

Evaluate Growth Assistant candidates across 4 weighted areas: campaigns that performed, measurement and testing, audience and segmentation, and working with the business. Campaigns that performed leads at 30%, so check which growth experiments they personally ran: paid social creative, referral loops, onboarding email sequences. Ask for signup, activation or CAC numbers before. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
marketing growthab testingfunnel metricsgrowth marketinglifecycle campaigns
TL;DR
For campaigns that performed, look for evidence the candidate names specific experiments with owned metrics, for example lifting trial-to-paid from 4% to 7% via a three-email onboarding sequence. For measurement and testing, look for evidence the candidate reads funnel dashboards critically, calls out attribution gaps, and refuses to declare a winner on underpowered test data. 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

Campaigns that performed

30% weight

Check which growth experiments they personally ran: paid social creative, referral loops, onboarding email sequences. Ask for signup, activation or CAC numbers before and after their work.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names campaigns or programmes they ran, with the metric they moved and the baseline it moved from
  • Distinguishes their own work from the team's or the agency's
  • Knows the audience and the offer, not just the channel
  • Can describe a campaign that failed and why

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No numbers; describes activity rather than results.

2
Needs Improvement

Vanity metrics only; attribution to their own work is unclear.

3
Satisfactory

Real campaigns with some numbers; baselines often missing.

4
Very Good

Named campaigns with metric, baseline, and clear personal ownership.

5
Excellent

Names specific experiments with owned metrics, for example lifting trial-to-paid from 4% to 7% via a three-email onboarding sequence.

02
Evaluation factor

Audience and segmentation

25% weight

Probe how they defined target segments: ICP filters in Apollo or Clay, cohort splits by acquisition channel, or lifecycle stages inside HubSpot or Customer.io.

Evidence to listen for

  • Describes real customer segments and what differs between them, not demographic guesses
  • Has built lifecycle stages, journeys, or nurture logic that reflect actual behaviour
  • Knows where the audience data comes from and its limits
  • Writes for the segment rather than for everyone

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

One message for everyone; no segmentation thinking.

2
Needs Improvement

Segments by demographics only; no behavioural insight.

3
Satisfactory

Workable segmentation; lifecycle logic is basic.

4
Very Good

Behaviour-driven segmentation and lifecycle design with evidence behind it.

5
Excellent

Distinguishes segments by behaviour and source, and can explain why one cohort converted differently from another.

03
Evaluation factor

Measurement and testing

30% weight

Test their handling of GA4, UTM hygiene, event tracking in Mixpanel or Amplitude, and whether they know when an A/B test lacks sample size.

Evidence to listen for

  • Tests deliberately rather than changing everything at once
  • Understands attribution limits and does not overclaim
  • Knows what sample size and duration a test needed
  • Can name a test whose result contradicted what they expected

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No testing; claims credit for correlation.

2
Needs Improvement

Runs tests but reads them badly; overclaims attribution.

3
Satisfactory

Tests sensibly; rigour drops under deadline pressure.

4
Very Good

Disciplined testing with honest attribution and a result that surprised them.

5
Excellent

Reads funnel dashboards critically, calls out attribution gaps, and refuses to declare a winner on underpowered test data.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the business

15% weight

Assess how they coordinated with sales, design and product: brief turnaround, creative requests, lead handoff quality, and weekly growth standup or reporting rhythm.

Evidence to listen for

  • Works with sales, product, or operations rather than throwing campaigns over a wall
  • Briefs designers and writers well enough to get usable work
  • Manages agencies or freelancers to a standard
  • Reports results to leadership without spin

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Works in isolation; reports only flattering numbers.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited coordination; briefs are thin.

3
Satisfactory

Coordinates adequately; reporting is honest if basic.

4
Very Good

Strong partner to sales and product; briefs and reports clearly.

5
Excellent

Describes concrete handoffs, for example flagging poor lead quality to sales and rewriting form fields to fix it.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Growth Assistant

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

  1. 01

    What experience do you have in growth marketing or related roles?

  2. 02

    Can you describe a growth initiative you have worked on and what it achieved?

  3. 03

    What tools or software are you familiar with that support growth work?

  4. 04

    How do you measure the success of a growth initiative?

  5. 05

    How do you approach testing for growth initiatives?

See the complete Growth Assistant 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