Interview scorecard template

Technical Support Manager interview scorecard

Evaluate Technical Support Manager 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 ran a live queue: ticket volumes per agent, first response and resolution SLA attainment, backlog control, CSAT trends, and coverage across shifts. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
operations administrationescalation handlingsla managementtechnical supportzendesk
TL;DR
For execution and reliability, look for evidence the candidate quotes real queue numbers, held P1 response SLAs above target, and cleared a named backlog without burning out the team. For improving the process, look for evidence the candidate shows a specific deflection or automation project with before and after contact rate, plus how they proved engineering fixed root causes. 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 ran a live queue: ticket volumes per agent, first response and resolution SLA attainment, backlog control, CSAT trends, and coverage across shifts or follow-the-sun rotas.

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

Quotes real queue numbers, held P1 response SLAs above target, and cleared a named backlog without burning out the team.

02
Evaluation factor

Improving the process

25% weight

Probe changes they made to deflect tickets: macro and knowledge base rewrites, Zendesk or Jira Service Management automations, triage tiers, bug handoff paths to engineering.

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

Shows a specific deflection or automation project with before and after contact rate, plus how they proved engineering fixed root causes.

03
Evaluation factor

Judgement and autonomy

25% weight

Assess escalation calls: when they woke an on-call engineer, issued a credit or RCA, overrode a tier boundary, or told a customer a fix would not come.

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

Describes judgement calls with thresholds they set themselves, owning one escalation that went wrong and what changed after it.

04
Evaluation factor

Communication

15% weight

Look for how they wrote incident updates for customers, coached agents through ticket reviews and QA scorecards, and briefed product on recurring defect themes.

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

Gives concrete examples: status page wording under outage, a QA coaching conversation, a defect trend report product acted on.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Technical Support Manager

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 managing a technical support team?

  2. 02

    How have you improved the efficiency of a support team in the past?

  3. 03

    Describe the most challenging technical project you have managed and its outcome.

  4. 04

    Do you have experience setting and measuring performance indicators for a support team?

  5. 05

    What do you do to ensure the quality of support your team provides?

See the complete Technical Support Manager 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