Interview scorecard template

IT Director interview scorecard

Evaluate IT Director 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 owned: ERP migrations, M365 or cloud consolidations, uptime and MTTR figures, helpdesk SLA attainment, and IT budgets they held. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
leadership strategycybersecurity governanceinfrastructureit leadershipvendor management
TL;DR
For record of outcomes, look for evidence the candidate names specific programmes (for example Azure migration, Netsuite rollout) with before and after uptime, ticket volume, and cost figures they personally owned. For strategic judgement, look for evidence the candidate explains a roadmap decision with the rejected alternative, the cost model behind it, and how the outcome was later reviewed. 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 owned: ERP migrations, M365 or cloud consolidations, uptime and MTTR figures, helpdesk SLA attainment, and IT budgets they held with headcount numbers.

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 (for example Azure migration, Netsuite rollout) with before and after uptime, ticket volume, and cost figures they personally owned.

02
Evaluation factor

Strategic judgement

25% weight

Probe how they set technology roadmaps: build versus buy calls, licensing renegotiations, technical debt retirement, disaster recovery posture, and their stance on AI or SaaS sprawl.

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 a roadmap decision with the rejected alternative, the cost model behind it, and how the outcome was later reviewed.

03
Evaluation factor

Building and leading teams

25% weight

Assess how they built the IT function: hiring sysadmins, security analysts and service desk leads, on-call rotations, retention during outages, and coaching engineers into managers.

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 specific promotions and structural changes, plus how they handled an underperformer or reduced burnout on an on-call rota.

04
Evaluation factor

Influence across the business

15% weight

Look for evidence of influence outside IT: board reporting on cyber risk, SOX or ISO 27001 audits, department heads adopting new systems, and negotiations with vendors like Microsoft or Cisco.

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 concrete examples of winning budget or driving adoption despite resistance, with named stakeholders, audit outcomes, or contract savings.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a IT Director

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

  1. 01

    Can you describe a complex technical programme you oversaw from start to finish?

  2. 02

    What strategies do you use for budget management within your department?

  3. 03

    What changes have you brought to a previous organisation's technology function?

  4. 04

    What is your approach to deciding on new technology?

  5. 05

    What is your strategy for vendor management and negotiation?

See the complete IT Director 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