Interview scorecard template

Reputation Experience Designer interview scorecard

Evaluate Reputation Experience Designer candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so ask to walk through journey maps, service blueprints, or review-request flows they designed; look for before and after NPS, Google review volume, or star-rating movement. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationjourney mappingreputation managementreview touchpointsservice blueprinting
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows two or three named reputation programmes with artefacts (blueprints, touchpoint maps) plus review volume and rating shifts they can attribute. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate justifies every touchpoint against customer emotion, effort, and Google or Trustpilot policy rather than pure conversion mechanics. 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

Portfolio

35% weight

Ask to walk through journey maps, service blueprints, or review-request flows they designed; look for before and after NPS, Google review volume, or star-rating movement.

Evidence to listen for

  • Work exists and can be looked at, not just described
  • States what they made versus what the team or a template made
  • Shows range rather than one repeated style
  • Can walk through a piece from brief to final

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No portfolio, or work that is unattributable or clearly templated.

2
Needs Improvement

Thin portfolio; unclear what they personally made.

3
Satisfactory

Real work with adequate range; contribution mostly clear.

4
Very Good

Strong varied portfolio with clear personal ownership.

5
Excellent

Shows two or three named reputation programmes with artefacts (blueprints, touchpoint maps) plus review volume and rating shifts they can attribute.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe why they placed feedback prompts where they did: timing after service, SMS versus email versus kiosk, wording that avoids review-gating and platform policy breaches.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains why a layout, type choice, or colour decision serves the brief
  • Knows typography and hierarchy as craft, not decoration
  • Works to a brand system without either breaking it or hiding behind it
  • Names the tools they are genuinely fast in

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain any decision; work is arbitrary.

2
Needs Improvement

Talks in taste terms only; no link between choice and brief.

3
Satisfactory

Sound craft with some ability to justify decisions.

4
Very Good

Articulate about why each choice serves the brief.

5
Excellent

Justifies every touchpoint against customer emotion, effort, and Google or Trustpilot policy rather than pure conversion mechanics.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Test how they handled negative sentiment data, detractor verbatims, or frontline staff pushback, and what they redesigned as a direct result.

Evidence to listen for

  • Takes critique without treating it as an attack
  • Distinguishes a subjective preference from a real problem, and says so politely
  • Iterates fast rather than defending version one
  • Delivers files correctly and on time

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Defensive about critique; will not revise.

2
Needs Improvement

Accepts feedback passively; iterations do not improve the work.

3
Satisfactory

Revises willingly; struggles to push back on weak feedback.

4
Very Good

Iterates quickly and can argue for the work when the feedback is wrong.

5
Excellent

Cites a specific redesign triggered by detractor themes or staff objections, with the follow-up measurement that confirmed it worked.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Check how they translate a vague brief like fix our reputation into scoped work: research plan, stakeholders in ops and legal, success metrics agreed upfront.

Evidence to listen for

  • Asks about audience and goal before opening the design tool
  • Works with marketing, product, or clients rather than in isolation
  • Flags an impossible brief early
  • Hands over files and assets others can actually use

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Designs in isolation; ignores the brief's purpose.

2
Needs Improvement

Starts designing before understanding the goal.

3
Satisfactory

Asks the right questions when prompted.

4
Very Good

Interrogates the brief up front and hands over cleanly.

5
Excellent

Reframes fuzzy reputation asks into measurable experience problems, names the ops, legal, and marketing partners pulled in early.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Reputation Experience Designer

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 project where you had to improve an organisation's reputation?

  2. 02

    Can you describe a time when your design work changed how a company was perceived?

  3. 03

    Can you provide an example of improving customer loyalty through experience design?

  4. 04

    What methods do you use to analyse customer sentiment and behaviour?

  5. 05

    How do you measure the success of a reputation strategy?

See the complete Reputation Experience Designer 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