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 owned P&L numbers: monthly revenue per treatment room, injectable cost of goods, membership retention, rebooking rate, and how they grew Botox or filler unit volume year over year.
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
Quotes specific revenue, retention and units-per-month figures for named locations, and explains which levers moved them.
02
Evaluation factor
Strategic judgement
25% weight
Probe how they chose device investments (Morpheus8, CoolSculpting, laser platforms), priced service menus, and decided between medical director oversight models or expanding into weight management.
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
Walks through a device or service line decision with payback maths, utilisation forecasts and the outcome, including one they killed.
03
Evaluation factor
Building and leading teams
25% weight
Assess hiring and retention of injectors, RNs, estheticians and front desk staff: ramp plans, commission structures, training on new protocols, turnover they inherited and fixed.
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
Names retention numbers, describes a specific injector or coordinator they developed, and shows how compensation design changed behaviour.
04
Evaluation factor
Influence across the business
15% weight
Look for command of scope-of-practice rules, state medical board and delegation requirements, HIPAA, adverse event protocols, and how they handled owners, medical directors and vendors.
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
Cites the specific state regulations they operate under and a moment they overruled a revenue-positive request on compliance grounds.
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.
