Interview scorecard template

IT Governance Manager interview scorecard

Evaluate IT Governance Manager candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, real incidents and findings, risk judgement, and getting things fixed. Technical depth leads at 35%, so check command of COBIT 2019, ISO 27001 Annex A, NIST CSF and SOX ITGC control design; ask how they map controls to a policy framework. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
security compliancecobitiso 27001it governancerisk register
TL;DR
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate names specific control objectives, explains ITGC scoping for change, access and operations, and distinguishes framework mapping from copy-paste adoption. For real incidents and findings, look for evidence the candidate cites named audits with finding counts, root causes, closure rates, and evidence packs they built rather than inherited from predecessors. 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

Technical depth

35% weight

Check command of COBIT 2019, ISO 27001 Annex A, NIST CSF and SOX ITGC control design; ask how they map controls to a policy framework and control library.

Evidence to listen for

  • Command of the specific attack surface, tooling, and controls the role covers
  • Understands how the underlying system works, not just how the tool reports on it
  • Can explain an attack or control chain end to end
  • Distinguishes what they found themselves from what a scanner flagged

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Tool operator only; no understanding of the systems underneath.

2
Needs Improvement

Runs tooling but cannot explain findings or how the attack works.

3
Satisfactory

Solid working knowledge; depth thins outside familiar tooling.

4
Very Good

Strong command of the domain; explains attack and control chains clearly.

5
Excellent

Names specific control objectives, explains ITGC scoping for change, access and operations, and distinguishes framework mapping from copy-paste adoption.

02
Evaluation factor

Real incidents and findings

30% weight

Probe audits they personally steered: SOC 2 Type II readiness, internal audit findings, regulator exams, and how many exceptions closed within remediation deadlines.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings specific incidents, findings, or audits they personally worked
  • States their own role rather than the team's
  • Describes what was actually at risk and what changed afterwards
  • Can talk about a finding that turned out to be wrong

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No hands-on work; knowledge is entirely certification or coursework.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited exposure; cannot describe their contribution to an incident.

3
Satisfactory

Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.

4
Very Good

Specific incidents with clear personal scope and what changed after.

5
Excellent

Cites named audits with finding counts, root causes, closure rates, and evidence packs they built rather than inherited from predecessors.

03
Evaluation factor

Risk judgement

20% weight

Test how they rank items on a risk register: inherent versus residual scoring, risk appetite thresholds, and when they signed off a formal exception or acceptance.

Evidence to listen for

  • Prioritises by actual exploitability and business impact, not raw severity scores
  • Can argue for accepting a risk as well as fixing it
  • Knows the difference between a finding and a problem
  • Does not cry wolf or wave things through

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Treats every finding as critical, or waves real risk through.

2
Needs Improvement

Follows severity scores mechanically; no business context.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable prioritisation; less confident arguing for risk acceptance.

4
Very Good

Prioritises by exploitability and impact; can justify accepting a risk.

5
Excellent

Describes a defensible scoring method, names the accountable risk owner, and gives an exception they refused along with the reasoning.

04
Evaluation factor

Getting things fixed

15% weight

Assess how they drove remediation with engineering and vendor owners: control ownership assignment, GRC tooling (Archer, ServiceNow IRM, LogicGate), and steering committee escalation.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes findings engineers can act on rather than a wall of output
  • Has persuaded a team to fix something they did not want to fix
  • Explains risk to executives in business terms
  • Works with the org rather than policing it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Adversarial with engineering; findings never get fixed.

2
Needs Improvement

Reports are unactionable; no influence beyond raising tickets.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate reporting; relies on mandate rather than persuasion.

4
Very Good

Actionable findings and a real record of getting fixes shipped.

5
Excellent

Shows overdue actions falling through named owners, tracked workflows, and board or steering reporting, not repeated reminder emails.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a IT Governance Manager

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 successful IT governance project you led in a previous role?

  2. 02

    Can you share your experience developing and implementing governance strategies?

  3. 03

    Can you describe a challenging governance project and how you tackled it?

  4. 04

    Do you have experience implementing a recognised IT compliance framework?

  5. 05

    What is your experience with IT auditing and risk assessment?

See the complete IT Governance Manager 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