Interview scorecard template

Life Insurance Advisor interview scorecard

Evaluate Life Insurance Advisor candidates across 4 weighted areas: track record, method and qualification, relationships and trust, and drive and resilience. Track record leads at 35%, so ask for annualised first year commission, policy count, and average face amount over the last two years, plus persistency or 13 month lapse rates they. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
sales business developmentlife insuranceneeds analysisterm and whole lifeunderwriting
TL;DR
For track record, look for evidence the candidate quotes concrete APE or FYC figures, case counts, and persistency above 85 percent, with carrier names and product mix. For method and qualification, look for evidence the candidate walks through a structured fact find, justifies product choice with numbers, and anticipates underwriting flags before submitting the application. 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

Track record

35% weight

Ask for annualised first year commission, policy count, and average face amount over the last two years, plus persistency or 13 month lapse rates they can quote.

Evidence to listen for

  • Gives numbers: quota, attainment, deal size, client roster
  • Explains the market and buyer they sold to, not just the product
  • Distinguishes what they closed from what the team closed
  • Can describe a deal they lost and why

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No numbers; cannot describe what they actually sold or to whom.

2
Needs Improvement

Vague attainment; credit for team results is unclear.

3
Satisfactory

Real record with some numbers; attribution occasionally fuzzy.

4
Very Good

Clear numbers and ownership, including honest losses.

5
Excellent

Quotes concrete APE or FYC figures, case counts, and persistency above 85 percent, with carrier names and product mix.

02
Evaluation factor

Method and qualification

25% weight

Probe their needs analysis method: DIME or capital retention calculations, term versus indexed universal life positioning, and how they handle rated cases or table shaves during underwriting.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has a repeatable approach to qualifying and progressing deals
  • Can walk a real deal from first contact to close
  • Handles objections with questions rather than scripts
  • Knows when to disqualify

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No method; pitches at everyone and hopes.

2
Needs Improvement

Weak qualification; deals stall with no diagnosis.

3
Satisfactory

Workable method; inconsistent on complex or long cycles.

4
Very Good

Clear repeatable method; disqualifies early and deliberately.

5
Excellent

Walks through a structured fact find, justifies product choice with numbers, and anticipates underwriting flags before submitting the application.

03
Evaluation factor

Relationships and trust

25% weight

Look for evidence of referral flow, annual policy reviews, beneficiary updates, and how they support families at claim time rather than disappearing after issue.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has clients or talent who came back or referred them
  • Manages a difficult conversation without damaging the relationship
  • Represents the client's interest, not only the commission
  • Builds rapport across seniority levels

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Transactional; burns relationships for a close.

2
Needs Improvement

Builds rapport but does not sustain relationships.

3
Satisfactory

Solid relationships; less tested in conflict.

4
Very Good

Repeat business and referrals; handles conflict without damage.

5
Excellent

Names clients retained for years, describes claim handling they personally shepherded, and shows referrals as a measurable share of production.

04
Evaluation factor

Drive and resilience

15% weight

Test how they rebuild a pipeline after a dry quarter: seminar work, orphan policy lists, centre of influence partnerships with CPAs, and handling of not taken policies.

Evidence to listen for

  • Handles rejection and a bad quarter without unravelling
  • Self-directed on pipeline rather than waiting for leads
  • Coachable on feedback
  • Honest in how they represent the product and themselves

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Gives up easily; blames leads, product, or market.

2
Needs Improvement

Motivation depends on momentum; resistant to coaching.

3
Satisfactory

Steady; recovers from setbacks with support.

4
Very Good

Self-motivated, coachable, and steady through bad stretches.

5
Excellent

Describes a repeatable prospecting routine with weekly activity targets and recovers from declined or lapsed cases without abandoning the pipeline.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Life Insurance Advisor

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 experience in the life insurance industry?

  2. 02

    Do you specialise in a particular type of client or situation?

  3. 03

    What qualifications and licences do you hold for this work?

  4. 04

    How do you determine the amount of cover a client actually needs?

  5. 05

    What is your approach to assessing a client's circumstances and risk profile?

See the complete Life Insurance Advisor 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