A competency-based rubric for behavioral rounds: five competencies with calibrated anchors, past-behavior evidence rules, and a no-averaging recommendation section.
This scorecard evaluates {{Candidate name}} for {{Role title}} on past behavior — what they actually did in real situations — not on hypothetical answers or personal chemistry. Behavioral interviews predict performance only when they are structured: same competencies, same question stems, same anchors for every candidate in the process.
| Competency | Strong evidence (3–4) | Weak evidence (1–2) | Score (1–4) | Evidence notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Took responsibility for an outcome beyond their formal scope; describes failures with their own contribution named first. | Attributes failures entirely to others or circumstances; waited for direction when the path was unclear. | {{Score}} | {{Situation, action, result}} |
| Collaboration | Describes disagreements resolved by understanding the other side; credits teammates specifically and accurately. | Stories cast colleagues as obstacles; conflict stories end with escalation or avoidance, never resolution. | {{Score}} | {{Situation, action, result}} |
| Judgment under ambiguity | Made a reasoned call with incomplete information, named the risks, and set a checkpoint to revisit it. | Cannot describe a decision they made without full certainty, or presents reckless bets as boldness. | {{Score}} | {{Situation, action, result}} |
| Adaptability | Changed approach when evidence contradicted their plan; describes what the change cost them honestly. | Every story shows the same playbook regardless of context; treats changing course as failure. | {{Score}} | {{Situation, action, result}} |
| Growth from feedback | Cites concrete critical feedback received, what they changed, and evidence the change stuck. | Only recalls praise; frames development areas as strengths in disguise ({{I care too much}}). | {{Score}} | {{Situation, action, result}} |
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Recommendation (strong no / no / yes / strong yes) | {{Recommendation}} |
| Competency with strongest evidence | {{Competency and why}} |
| Competency with weakest or no evidence | {{Competency and why}} |
| Follow-up the next round should probe | {{One specific question}} |
Not legal advice
This template is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws differ by jurisdiction and change over time — have a qualified professional review any document before you rely on it.
30 vetted interview questions for an Account Executive, grouped by competency — discovery, pipeline, demos and value selling, negotiation, forecasting, and coachability — with what-good-looks-like guidance.
Thirty vetted interview questions for Backend Engineer candidates covering API design, data modeling, performance, reliability, and collaboration, with strong-answer guidance.
Twenty-eight vetted interview questions for Brand Designer candidates covering brand strategy, identity craft, systems, collaboration, and feedback, with strong-answer guidance.
A cross-stage evaluation matrix that combines individual scorecards into one weighted decision view, with rules for setting weights before interviews and handling gaps and vetoes.
A touchpoint-by-touchpoint checklist that keeps candidates informed and respected from application to decision, with response-time standards and the failures that cost offers.
A values-alignment rubric that scores observable behavior against your stated values — values add, not culture fit — with anchors designed to keep likability out of the score.