Interview scorecard template

Strategy Intern interview scorecard

Evaluate Strategy Intern candidates across 4 weighted areas: record of outcomes, strategic judgement, building and leading teams, and influence across the business. Record of outcomes leads at 35%, so check what the intern actually delivered: a market sizing model, competitor teardown, case competition placement, or a recommendation deck a manager took. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
leadership strategycase studycompetitive analysismarket sizingstrategy
TL;DR
For record of outcomes, look for evidence the candidate names a specific deliverable, the audience who received it, and what the business did differently afterwards. For strategic judgement, look for evidence the candidate structures the problem into two or three drivers, states assumptions openly, and defends a recommendation rather than listing options. 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

Record of outcomes

35% weight

Check what the intern actually delivered: a market sizing model, competitor teardown, case competition placement, or a recommendation deck a manager took to a real decision.

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

Names a specific deliverable, the audience who received it, and what the business did differently afterwards.

02
Evaluation factor

Strategic judgement

25% weight

Test how they frame an ambiguous question: sizing a new market, build versus partner logic, or reading a competitor's pricing move with incomplete data.

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

Structures the problem into two or three drivers, states assumptions openly, and defends a recommendation rather than listing options.

03
Evaluation factor

Building and leading teams

25% weight

Probe collaboration on lean project teams: dividing research streams with fellow analysts, chasing inputs from finance or sales, and holding a deck deadline.

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

Describes owning a workstream, unblocking peers, and merging scattered inputs into one coherent document without partner rescue.

04
Evaluation factor

Influence across the business

15% weight

Assess how they push findings upward: pressure-testing a slide with a manager, handling a director who disagreed with the data, or presenting to a steering group.

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

Recounts a specific pushback from a senior stakeholder and how evidence, not seniority, resolved the disagreement.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Strategy Intern

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 time you used data to support a decision?

  2. 02

    Can you give an example of a project that required planning ahead?

  3. 03

    What experience do you have with market or competitor research?

  4. 04

    How would you approach a strategic question you know nothing about?

  5. 05

    What is your experience with structured analysis frameworks?

See the complete Strategy Intern 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