Hiring Scorecard Template

# Hiring Scorecard: [Role Title]

**Level:** [Level/Seniority]
**Team:** [Team Name]
**Hiring Manager:** [Name]
**Created:** [YYYY-MM-DD]

---

## Role Overview

### Position Summary

[Brief description of the role and its impact]

### Key Responsibilities

1. [Responsibility 1]
2. [Responsibility 2]
3. [Responsibility 3]

### Must-Have Qualifications

- [Qualification 1]
- [Qualification 2]

### Nice-to-Have Qualifications

- [Qualification 1]
- [Qualification 2]

---

## Interview Structure

| Round | Duration | Focus Area | Interviewer |
|-------|----------|------------|-------------|
| [Round 1] | [Duration] | [Focus] | [Role/Name] |
| [Round 2] | [Duration] | [Focus] | [Role/Name] |
| [Round 3] | [Duration] | [Focus] | [Role/Name] |
| [Round 4] | [Duration] | [Focus] | [Role/Name] |

---

## Competencies and Scoring

### Rating Scale

| Score | Rating | Definition |
|-------|--------|------------|
| 1 | Strong No | Significant concerns. Missing critical skills or behaviors. |
| 2 | Lean No | Some concerns. Below bar for the role/level. |
| 3 | Lean Yes | Meets expectations. Would succeed in role. |
| 4 | Strong Yes | Exceeds expectations. Clear strength. |

### Competency: [Competency Name]

**Definition:** [What this competency means]

**Why it matters:** [Why this is important for the role]

**Signals to look for:**

*Strong Yes (4):*
- [Signal of excellence]
- [Signal of excellence]

*Lean Yes (3):*
- [Signal of meeting bar]
- [Signal of meeting bar]

*Lean No (2):*
- [Signal of concern]
- [Signal of concern]

*Strong No (1):*
- [Red flag]
- [Red flag]

**Sample questions:**
- [Question 1]
- [Question 2]

[Repeat for each competency]

---

## Individual Interview Scorecard

### Candidate Information

**Candidate:** ________________
**Date:** ________________
**Interviewer:** ________________
**Interview Type:** ________________

### Competency Ratings

| Competency | Score (1-4) | Notes |
|------------|-------------|-------|
| [Competency 1] | | |
| [Competency 2] | | |
| [Competency 3] | | |
| [Competency 4] | | |

### Overall Assessment

**Overall Rating:** [ ] Strong No [ ] Lean No [ ] Lean Yes [ ] Strong Yes

**Strengths:**
-
-

**Concerns:**
-
-

**Questions for other interviewers to probe:**
-

### Final Recommendation

[ ] Hire
[ ] No Hire
[ ] Need More Information

**Reasoning:**

---

## Debrief Guide

### Before Debrief

- All interviewers submit scorecards independently
- No discussion until all feedback is in
- Review other feedback before debrief

### Debrief Agenda

1. Hiring manager shares role context (2 min)
2. Each interviewer shares: rating, top strength, top concern (2 min each)
3. Discuss areas of disagreement
4. Discuss questions/concerns to probe in references
5. Make hire/no-hire decision

### Decision Framework

**Hire if:**
- No Strong No ratings (or explainable)
- Majority Lean Yes or better
- Critical competencies met
- Team fit confirmed

**No Hire if:**
- Any unexplained Strong No
- Critical competency gaps
- Significant concerns about level

# Hiring Scorecard: Senior Software Engineer

**Level:** L5 (Senior)
**Team:** Platform Team
**Hiring Manager:** Sarah Chen
**Created:** 2025-10-01

---

## Role Overview

### Position Summary

We're looking for a Senior Software Engineer to join our Platform team. This person will help build and maintain the infrastructure and tooling that enables our product teams to ship faster. You'll work on Kubernetes, CI/CD pipelines, developer tools, and observability systems.

This is a high-impact role where your work multiplies the effectiveness of 50+ engineers across the company.

### Key Responsibilities

1. Design and implement scalable infrastructure solutions
2. Improve developer experience through better tooling
3. Participate in on-call rotation and incident response
4. Mentor junior engineers and conduct code reviews
5. Contribute to technical strategy and architecture decisions

### Must-Have Qualifications

- 5+ years of software engineering experience
- Experience with cloud infrastructure (AWS, GCP, or Azure)
- Strong programming skills (Go, Python, or similar)
- Experience with container orchestration (Kubernetes preferred)
- Track record of shipping reliable systems

### Nice-to-Have Qualifications

- Experience with CI/CD pipelines and developer tools
- Infrastructure as Code (Terraform, Pulumi)
- Observability systems (metrics, logging, tracing)
- Previous platform/infrastructure team experience

---

## Interview Structure

| Round | Duration | Focus Area | Interviewer |
|-------|----------|------------|-------------|
| Recruiter Screen | 30 min | Background, motivation, logistics | Recruiter |
| Hiring Manager Screen | 45 min | Experience, culture, role fit | Sarah Chen (EM) |
| Technical Phone | 60 min | Coding + system design | Alex Rivera (Senior Eng) |
| Onsite: System Design | 60 min | Large-scale system design | Mike Johnson (Senior Eng) |
| Onsite: Coding | 60 min | Live coding + problem solving | Jamie Park (Eng) |
| Onsite: Behavioral | 45 min | Collaboration, communication | Lisa Wang (Eng) |
| Onsite: Bar Raiser | 45 min | Overall assessment, culture | David Kim (Staff Eng) |

---

## Competencies and Scoring

### Rating Scale

| Score | Rating | Definition |
|-------|--------|------------|
| 1 | Strong No | Significant concerns. Missing critical skills or behaviors. Clear mismatch for role. |
| 2 | Lean No | Some concerns. Below bar for senior level. Might succeed with significant coaching. |
| 3 | Lean Yes | Meets bar. Would succeed in role. Typical strong senior engineer. |
| 4 | Strong Yes | Exceeds bar. Exceptional strength. Would elevate the team. |

### Competency: Technical Skills

**Definition:** Depth and breadth of technical knowledge. Ability to write clean, efficient, maintainable code. Understanding of system design principles.

**Why it matters:** Core function of the role. Must be able to contribute technically from day one.

**Signals to look for:**

*Strong Yes (4):*
- Elegant solutions that demonstrate deep understanding
- Proactively considers edge cases, performance, and maintainability
- Demonstrates expertise in infrastructure/platform domain
- Code is production-ready quality
- Explains trade-offs clearly and makes appropriate choices

*Lean Yes (3):*
- Arrives at correct solutions with reasonable approach
- Code is clean and working
- Considers basic edge cases
- Understands trade-offs when prompted
- Demonstrates solid fundamentals

*Lean No (2):*
- Needs significant hints to make progress
- Code works but has quality issues
- Misses important edge cases
- Struggles to articulate trade-offs
- Gaps in fundamental knowledge

*Strong No (1):*
- Cannot solve problems at expected level
- Code has significant bugs or poor structure
- Doesn't demonstrate required technical depth
- Unable to discuss basic system design concepts

**Sample questions:**
- "Design a system that [specific platform problem]"
- "Walk me through how you'd debug [specific scenario]"
- "What trade-offs would you consider when choosing between X and Y?"
- Live coding: implement [specific algorithm/tool]

---

### Competency: System Design & Architecture

**Definition:** Ability to design complex systems that are scalable, reliable, and maintainable. Understanding of distributed systems concepts.

**Why it matters:** Senior engineers must be able to design solutions, not just implement them. Platform work requires thinking about scale.

**Signals to look for:**

*Strong Yes (4):*
- Structures the problem well, asks clarifying questions
- Considers scalability, reliability, and operational concerns upfront
- Proposes multiple approaches and articulates trade-offs
- Design is practical and implementable
- Demonstrates depth in distributed systems concepts

*Lean Yes (3):*
- Produces reasonable design with guidance
- Considers scale and reliability when prompted
- Understands common patterns (caching, queuing, etc.)
- Can discuss trade-offs of their design

*Lean No (2):*
- Design has significant gaps or scalability issues
- Needs heavy guidance to make progress
- Limited understanding of distributed systems
- Doesn't consider operational concerns

*Strong No (1):*
- Cannot produce a coherent design
- Fundamental misunderstanding of systems concepts
- Unable to reason about scale or reliability

**Sample questions:**
- "Design a deployment pipeline that can handle 100 deploys/day"
- "How would you build an alerting system that scales?"
- "Walk me through how you'd approach migrating from X to Y"

---

### Competency: Problem Solving

**Definition:** Approach to breaking down complex problems. Ability to handle ambiguity and make progress with incomplete information.

**Why it matters:** Platform work involves novel problems without clear solutions. Must be able to navigate ambiguity.

**Signals to look for:**

*Strong Yes (4):*
- Asks excellent clarifying questions
- Breaks down problems systematically
- Comfortable with ambiguity, makes reasonable assumptions
- Iterates on solutions and improves them
- Demonstrates creative thinking

*Lean Yes (3):*
- Reasonable approach to problem decomposition
- Asks some clarifying questions
- Can work through ambiguity with guidance
- Arrives at workable solutions

*Lean No (2):*
- Struggles to break down problems
- Gets stuck when facing ambiguity
- Needs significant guidance to make progress
- Jumps to solutions without understanding problem

*Strong No (1):*
- Cannot make progress on problems
- Unable to handle any ambiguity
- Doesn't ask questions or make assumptions

**Sample questions:**
- Intentionally ambiguous problems
- "You're getting reports of slow deploys. How would you investigate?"
- "We want to reduce infrastructure costs. Where would you start?"

---

### Competency: Communication & Collaboration

**Definition:** Ability to communicate technical concepts clearly. Collaboration with teammates and stakeholders. Receptiveness to feedback.

**Why it matters:** Platform team serves entire engineering org. Must be able to work with diverse stakeholders and communicate effectively.

**Signals to look for:**

*Strong Yes (4):*
- Explains complex concepts clearly to any audience
- Actively listens and incorporates feedback
- Shows evidence of successful cross-team collaboration
- Handles disagreement constructively
- Demonstrates empathy for users (other engineers)

*Lean Yes (3):*
- Communicates clearly and professionally
- Collaborates well in interview setting
- Has examples of teamwork
- Receptive to feedback

*Lean No (2):*
- Communication unclear or overly technical
- Seems to prefer working alone
- Defensive about feedback
- Limited collaboration examples

*Strong No (1):*
- Cannot communicate ideas clearly
- Dismissive or arrogant behavior
- No evidence of collaboration ability
- Red flags in how they describe past teams

**Sample questions:**
- "Tell me about a time you had to convince others of a technical approach"
- "Describe a disagreement with a teammate and how you resolved it"
- "How do you approach giving feedback to peers?"

---

### Competency: Ownership & Impact

**Definition:** Taking responsibility for outcomes. Driving projects to completion. Demonstrating impact in previous roles.

**Why it matters:** Senior engineers must own projects end-to-end, not just complete assigned tasks.

**Signals to look for:**

*Strong Yes (4):*
- Clear examples of leading significant projects
- Takes responsibility for outcomes (including failures)
- Demonstrates initiative and proactive problem-solving
- Impact is quantified and significant
- Shows growth mindset and learning from mistakes

*Lean Yes (3):*
- Has owned projects from start to finish
- Takes responsibility for their work
- Can describe impact of their work
- Shows appropriate ownership for level

*Lean No (2):*
- Limited ownership examples
- Blames others for failures
- Impact is unclear or limited
- Seems to wait for direction

*Strong No (1):*
- No ownership examples
- Avoids responsibility
- Cannot articulate any meaningful impact
- Victim mentality

**Sample questions:**
- "Tell me about a project you owned from start to finish"
- "Describe a time something you worked on failed. What happened?"
- "What's your biggest accomplishment in the past year?"

---

### Competency: Culture Fit / Values Alignment

**Definition:** Alignment with company and team values. Will they thrive here and make the team better?

**Why it matters:** Skills can be developed; culture fit is harder to change. Must be someone the team wants to work with.

**Signals to look for:**

*Strong Yes (4):*
- Values clearly align with team/company culture
- Would make the team better (not just fit in)
- Shows genuine interest in the mission
- Demonstrated values in past behavior
- Would elevate team dynamics

*Lean Yes (3):*
- Values align adequately
- Would fit in with team
- Interested in the opportunity
- No culture concerns

*Lean No (2):*
- Some values misalignment
- Might struggle with team culture
- Lukewarm interest
- Minor culture concerns

*Strong No (1):*
- Clear values mismatch
- Would be disruptive to team
- Disinterested or negative
- Major culture red flags

**Team values to assess:**
- Ownership and accountability
- Collaboration and helping others
- Continuous learning
- Direct communication
- Developer empathy

**Sample questions:**
- "What kind of team environment do you do your best work in?"
- "Tell me about a time you helped a teammate succeed"
- "What frustrated you about your last role?"

---

## Individual Interview Scorecard

### Candidate Information

**Candidate:** ________________
**Date:** ________________
**Interviewer:** ________________
**Interview Type:** ________________

### Competency Ratings

| Competency | Score (1-4) | Notes |
|------------|-------------|-------|
| Technical Skills | | |
| System Design | | |
| Problem Solving | | |
| Communication | | |
| Ownership | | |
| Culture Fit | | |

### Overall Assessment

**Overall Rating:** [ ] Strong No [ ] Lean No [ ] Lean Yes [ ] Strong Yes

**Top 2 Strengths:**
1.
2.

**Top 2 Concerns:**
1.
2.

**Questions for other interviewers to probe:**
-
-

### Recommendation

[ ] Hire
[ ] No Hire
[ ] Need More Information

**If No Hire, what would change your mind?**

**If Hire, at what level?**
- [ ] Below target level (L4)
- [ ] At target level (L5)
- [ ] Above target level (L6)

---

## Debrief Guide

### Before Debrief

1. All interviewers submit scorecards within 24 hours
2. No discussion of candidate until all feedback is in
3. Hiring manager reviews all feedback before scheduling debrief
4. Each interviewer reviews other feedback 30 min before debrief

### Debrief Agenda (45 min)

1. **Context** (2 min) - Sarah reminds group of role requirements
2. **Round Robin** (15 min) - Each interviewer shares:
   - Overall rating
   - One top strength (with specific evidence)
   - One top concern (with specific evidence)
3. **Deep Dive** (15 min) - Discuss:
   - Any Strong No ratings
   - Areas of disagreement
   - Competency gaps
4. **Level Discussion** (5 min) - Is candidate at target level?
5. **Decision** (5 min) - Make hire/no-hire call
6. **References** (3 min) - What to probe in reference checks

### Decision Framework

**Hire if:**
- No unexplained Strong No ratings
- Average score ≥ 2.5 across competencies
- No critical competency below 2
- Majority of interviewers recommend hire
- Level appropriate for role

**No Hire if:**
- Any Strong No on critical competency (Technical, Ownership)
- Multiple Lean No ratings
- Significant level mismatch
- Culture fit concerns
- Average score < 2.5

**Need More Information:**
- Only if specific gap can be assessed (e.g., additional technical deep dive)
- Not for marginal candidates (default to No Hire)