Useful journalism to understand, manage and grow a business.
SearchA shared script, job-related questions, and a rubric with observable examples help assess candidates more consistently, without confusing structure with a guarantee of success.
When different people interview the same candidate, they may come away with opposing assessments if each improvises questions and applies different criteria. For a small business, this makes comparisons more difficult and makes it harder to explain why one person advanced in the process and another did not.
A structured interview reduces this variability: for the same position, candidates answer questions prepared in advance, in the same order, and their answers are assessed using common criteria. It does not eliminate bias or guarantee a successful hire, but it helps ensure the decision is based more on evidence related to the work and less on general impressions.
Before drafting questions, clarify what the role requires: what its responsibilities are, what problems the person will need to solve, and what abilities are essential for performing well. Based on this analysis, select a few critical competencies. A brief guide focused on what matters is usually more practical than a lengthy list of generic qualities.
Each question should help assess a specific competency. For example, if the position requires resolving customer issues, you can ask about a real situation in which the person handled a problem. For someone with little experience, it may be more useful to present a hypothetical scenario and ask them to explain how they would respond.
In both cases, look for information about the person’s actions, not just a general description of what they consider important.
For each competency, define a main question and, if needed, planned follow-up questions to obtain comparable details. For example: “What specifically did you do?”, “What result did you achieve?”, or “What would you do differently now?” This allows you to explore further without improvising substantially different questions for each candidate.
Use the same order and procedure for everyone applying for the same position. There is no need to turn the interview into a mechanical reading exercise: you can explain the process, listen attentively, and leave time for questions at the end. Consistency means evaluating everyone using equivalent opportunities and criteria.
A rubric establishes in advance how answers translate into assessments. It can use a simple scale, such as five levels, provided it describes what is observed at each level. Vague labels—such as “good” or “bad”—offer little guidance and leave too much room for interpretation.
For a customer service competency, descriptors might distinguish between an answer that does not identify the candidate’s own actions, one that explains how they resolved the immediate problem, and one that also shows how they verified the solution or helped prevent the problem from recurring. These are design examples: the specific criteria should reflect the position’s tasks, not be copied from a generic guide.
Before conducting interviews, share the rubric with everyone involved and confirm that they understand its descriptors in a similar way. If the team cannot explain what evidence distinguishes one level from another, adjust the scale before using it.
Take brief notes on what the person said: actions, decisions, results, and information relevant to the competency being assessed. Keep these observations separate from scores and interpretations. “Explained that they called the customer, checked the order status, and agreed on a timeframe” provides more information than “seems resourceful.”
Notes should be relevant to the position and handled in accordance with the practices and rules applicable to candidate information. There is no need to transcribe the entire conversation: the goal is to preserve enough evidence to apply the rubric and compare assessments.
If there are several interviewers, it is useful for each person to score candidates independently before discussing them. This reduces the risk that the opinion of someone with more seniority or confidence will sway the others. Then compare the assessments and review differences in light of the notes and descriptors, not personal rapport or intuition.
You can also practise with a fictional answer or a pilot interview. If two assessors interpret the same evidence very differently, review the question or the rubric. The purpose is not to require all assessments to match, but to identify which criterion explains the difference and whether it is being applied consistently.
The interview score is an input to the decision, not a certainty about future performance. Depending on the position, the company may also consider practical exercises or other relevant tests, using criteria related to the duties to be performed.
Selection interviews must comply with the applicable employment, equality, and data protection rules. Since no jurisdiction has been specified, it is not possible to detail specific legal obligations or determine which questions or procedures are permitted in each territory. Structuring an interview does not replace that review or justify collecting information unrelated to the requirements of the position.
In practice, the framework helps organize comparisons; the quality of the outcome depends on whether the competencies are relevant, the questions are well designed, and the team applies the criteria carefully. A consistent decision is not necessarily infallible, but it can be better supported and explained more clearly.
A checklist for comparing direct employment, independent services, and intermediary models, and identifying obligations that vary depending on the country where the work is performed.
Read story
A practical checklist for agreeing on availability, response times, channels, meetings, and coordination between office-based and remote work, and for reviewing agreements without turning them into rigid rules.
Read story
Values only truly provide guidance when they help people make decisions and work. This guide proposes translating them into specific behaviors, incorporating them into team routines, and reviewing whether the company’s practices are consistent with what it says.
Read story