Interview scorecard template

Personal Assistant interview scorecard

Evaluate Personal Assistant candidates across 4 weighted areas: execution and reliability, improving the process, judgement and autonomy, and communication. Execution and reliability leads at 35%, so check how they run a principal's diary: Outlook or Google Calendar conflicts across time zones, expense filing in Concur or Expensify, visa and multi-leg travel bookings. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
operations administrationcalendar managementdiscretionexecutive supporttravel logistics
TL;DR
For execution and reliability, look for evidence the candidate names the principals supported, daily meeting volume, and how inbox triage plus travel itineraries stayed accurate through last-minute changes. For improving the process, look for evidence the candidate describes a specific system they built, such as a weekly briefing document or booking checklist, and the time it saved. 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

Execution and reliability

35% weight

Check how they run a principal's diary: Outlook or Google Calendar conflicts across time zones, expense filing in Concur or Expensify, visa and multi-leg travel bookings.

Evidence to listen for

  • Describes a workload they owned and how they kept it from slipping
  • Names the tools and systems they ran day to day
  • Can talk about volume: tickets, inboxes, orders, uptime
  • Nothing quietly falls through when they are busy

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot describe their own workload; things slip without them noticing.

2
Needs Improvement

Handles routine volume; drops work under pressure.

3
Satisfactory

Reliable on steady-state work; struggles when volume spikes.

4
Very Good

Consistently reliable at real volume with a system for staying on top.

5
Excellent

Names the principals supported, daily meeting volume, and how inbox triage plus travel itineraries stayed accurate through last-minute changes.

02
Evaluation factor

Improving the process

25% weight

Probe changes they introduced: shared travel templates, briefing pack formats, meeting request triage rules, vendor lists, or moving expenses off spreadsheets into a proper tool.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has changed a process rather than only following one
  • Can name what was slow or error-prone and what they did about it
  • Documents so the improvement survives them
  • Knows when a process is worth automating and when it is not

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Follows instructions only; no sense that process can change.

2
Needs Improvement

Notices problems but escalates rather than solving.

3
Satisfactory

Makes small improvements; impact is local and undocumented.

4
Very Good

Has redesigned a real process with measurable effect.

5
Excellent

Describes a specific system they built, such as a weekly briefing document or booking checklist, and the time it saved.

03
Evaluation factor

Judgement and autonomy

25% weight

Test what they decide alone: which invitations to decline, when to interrupt the principal, handling confidential board papers, salary data, or personal family logistics.

Evidence to listen for

  • Knows what to decide alone and what to escalate
  • Handles an exception without freezing or improvising recklessly
  • Protects confidentiality and access appropriately
  • Asks a clarifying question rather than guessing on something costly

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Either escalates everything or acts recklessly on their own.

2
Needs Improvement

Needs frequent direction; uneasy with exceptions.

3
Satisfactory

Sound judgement on familiar decisions.

4
Very Good

Clear sense of their own authority; handles exceptions well.

5
Excellent

Gives clear rules of thumb for guarding time and confidentiality, plus an example of protecting the principal without checking first.

04
Evaluation factor

Communication

15% weight

Assess tone with senior stakeholders: drafting emails in someone else's voice, chasing executives for documents, and managing clients told their meeting was moved.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes clearly enough that people act without a follow-up
  • Manages expectations before a deadline slips, not after
  • Handles a frustrated colleague or customer calmly
  • Works across time zones or async where the role needs it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Unclear written communication; goes quiet when things slip.

2
Needs Improvement

Communication needs chasing; raises problems late.

3
Satisfactory

Clear enough day to day; proactive updates are inconsistent.

4
Very Good

Clear, proactive, and calm under pressure.

5
Excellent

Writes crisply in the principal's voice, chases persistently without friction, and keeps everyone informed before they need to ask.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Personal Assistant

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

  1. 01

    What previous experience do you have as a personal assistant?

  2. 02

    Do you have experience working with high-profile individuals or clients?

  3. 03

    Can you give an example of a longer project you managed?

  4. 04

    What is your approach to handling confidential information?

  5. 05

    Do you have experience managing budgets or household finances?

See the complete Personal 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