Interviews are hard to compare when candidates answer different questions and the decision rests on a general impression. A scorecard helps record job-related evidence. It guarantees neither objectivity nor a successful hire: its quality depends on the criteria, questions and interpretation of answers.
This Jawb template prepares an administrative assistant interview. The role and situations are fictional. Adapt the scorecard before meeting candidates; the proposed weights are neither a Moroccan standard nor an official hiring threshold.
Start with the actual work
Write down duties before criteria. In this example: tracking files, identifying missing documents, maintaining a spreadsheet and informing an interlocutor. “Dynamic personality” does not describe these tasks precisely enough. “Explains a file’s status and next action” is more observable.
Separate skills needed on arrival from those that can be learned with support. A particular software package matters differently if training is provided. Check that any language assessed is actually used in the role. Testing an unrelated language may exclude applicants for a reason with little relevance to the work.
A scorecard to copy and adapt
Add a column for factual observations. A number without an example does not explain the decision. You can download this CSV scorecard and open it in a spreadsheet.
| Criterion | Proposed weight | Observable evidence |
|---|---|---|
| File tracking | 35% | Identifies documents, status and next action |
| Spreadsheet reliability | 25% | Checks references, dates and missing information |
| Professional communication | 25% | Explains a request clearly without an unverified promise |
| Priority organisation | 15% | Justifies task order and flags a blockage |
Weights total 100% and illustrate the calculation only. Replace criteria for a different role and decide weights before interviews. Do not change them after meeting someone to improve their result.
Ask the same main questions
For file tracking: “A requested document is missing and your colleague is absent. How do you check what is missing and continue tracking?”
For reliability: “The same reference appears on two spreadsheet rows. What do you check before correcting it?”
For communication: “Someone asks for a reply date you cannot confirm. What do you tell them?”
For priorities: “Two urgent requests arrive while you are working on another task. What information do you seek to decide the order?”
Provide the same instructions and information to everyone. Follow-up questions can clarify an answer: “What was your personal action?”, “What did you check?”, “What if the information remained unavailable?” Beginners may use training or placement examples; record their nature rather than expecting invented employment experience.
A scale with observable anchors
Score a criterion, not the whole person. Suggested anchors for spreadsheet reliability:
| Score | Anchor for this criterion |
|---|---|
| 1 | Corrects without checking and misses the risk |
| 2 | Spots the anomaly but proposes no specific check |
| 3 | Checks the reference and source before correction |
| 4 | Also checks related rows and records the change |
| 5 | Explains how to prevent the error recurring |
If the question was not asked, record “not assessed”, not automatically 1. Complete the assessment before calculating a result. The scale supports discussion; it is not a universal skill measure.
A calculation with a fictional example
Suppose the scores, in scorecard order, are 4, 3, 4 and 2. The weighted average is 4 × 0.35 + 3 × 0.25 + 4 × 0.25 + 2 × 0.15 = 3.45 out of 5. For presentation out of 100, multiply by 20: 69 out of 100.
This is not a “69% chance of success”. It summarises observations with chosen weights. No hiring threshold is proposed. Similar results call for rereading evidence and requirements, rather than claiming scientific precision about who is better.
Separate job constraints from personal judgement
Availability, travel and pay conditions can be discussed separately. Ask whether the person can meet the stated hours, without investigating family circumstances. An operational constraint should not become a “motivation” score.
Avoid vague “cultural fit” criteria that merely reward resemblance to the team. Ask how the person passes information on, flags errors or cooperates on a task. Restrict notes to necessary professional information and to those involved in recruitment.
Compare assessments and prepare the next step
Each assessor records observations before the group discussion. Where scores differ, compare the evidence cited: did the answer contain a check, an assumption or missing information? Do not replace that discussion with “a good feeling”.
If an essential point remains unassessed, offer a comparable follow-up to all relevant candidates. A practical task should be limited, explicit and job-related; it should not obtain unpaid real production for the company. Explain the next stage without promising a decision date you cannot control.
Read vacancies on Jawb when preparing a listing around these criteria. Our investment and recruitment guide explains why an employment forecast is not an open vacancy.
Methodological reference: OPM’s structured interview overview, from a US public institution. It explains common questions and scoring criteria, rather than Moroccan legal rules. The scorecard, weights and examples above are original educational suggestions by Rédaction Jawb.
