Interview scorecardReviewed by Adroit Staffing editorial reviewPractice guidance, no data claims6 min read
The short answer
Assess an SDR on four criteria — targeting judgement, conversation quality, resilience and tooling fluency — using the same questions and the same written scores for every candidate. Rehearsed answers come from generic questions; ask about specific decisions instead.
Key facts
- Stages
- Screen, live exercise, team conversation
- Scoring
- Four criteria, 1–4, written before discussion
- Live exercise
- 10 minutes' research, 2 minutes' rationale, 5-minute call
- Reusable
- Same scorecard across every SDR candidate in a search
SDR scorecard
Run the same four dimensions with every SDR candidate, in the same order. Score in writing during the interview, before the panel talks. Print the scorecard or copy it into your ATS at the end.
Scores and notes stay in this tab. Copy, print or download the sheet — nothing is uploaded.
SDR — interview scorecard
Adroit Staffing — adroitstaffing.co.uk
Dimension 1
Targeting judgement
Tests: Whether they decide who to contact, or work a list somebody handed them.
“Take me through how you chose who to contact last Tuesday.”
Strong answers show
- Names a filter — trigger, technology, headcount move, role change — and can defend it
- Explains who they deliberately did not contact and why
- Ties targeting back to which accounts actually converted
Weak answers sound like
- Describes the tool rather than the decision
- “Whatever was in the sequence that day”
- Volume is the only measure of a good day
Follow-up prompts
- “What did you change about that filter in the last month?”
- “Which accounts did you drop, and what made you drop them?”
Dimension 2
Conversation quality
Tests: Whether they can hold a first conversation with someone who is busy and sceptical.
“Run a five-minute first call with a colleague briefed to be busy and mildly sceptical.”
Strong answers show
- Earns the next thirty seconds before pitching
- Asks, listens, and summarises accurately
- Handles an interruption without losing the thread
Weak answers sound like
- Talks over the interruption and finishes the script
- Asks questions they have already been told the answer to
- Books a meeting nobody agreed to
Follow-up prompts
- “What would you do differently if you ran that call again?”
- “What did you hear that you did not expect?”
Dimension 3
Resilience and self-correction
Tests: What they do after a bad month, rather than how they describe one.
“Tell me about your worst month in this job. What did you change?”
Strong answers show
- Names the specific change and what happened next
- Separates what they controlled from what they did not
- Asked for help early rather than late
Weak answers sound like
- Blames the list, the market or marketing
- Describes working harder rather than differently
- Cannot remember a bad month
Follow-up prompts
- “Who did you ask for help, and what did they change?”
- “How would you spot the same pattern a fortnight earlier next time?”
Dimension 4
Tooling fluency without over-automation
Tests: Whether modern tooling is used for leverage or as a substitute for thinking.
“Where has automation made your outreach worse?”
Strong answers show
- Cites time reclaimed while quality held
- Names what they always write themselves
- Can show a before-and-after on a real message
Weak answers sound like
- Only cites increased send volume
- Cannot describe what the tool actually does
- Sends generated messages unedited
Follow-up prompts
- “Show me the last message you sent that you wrote from scratch.”
- “What would you stop using tomorrow if you had to?”
Average score: not scored yet
Every panel member submits scores before anybody speaks. Discuss only the dimensions where scores differ by two or more. A 1 on conversation quality is a decline regardless of the average.
The 1–5 scoring language
Agree the wording with the panel before the first interview. Most disagreement in a debrief is two people using the same number to mean different things.
- 1 — No evidence
- Could not give a real example, or the example contradicted the claim.
- 2 — Weak evidence
- General answer, or evidence that belonged to someone else on the team.
- 3 — Meets the bar
- Specific example, owned by them, holds up under one follow-up.
- 4 — Strong
- Specific and measured, plus a clear account of what they would change.
- 5 — Exceptional
- Evidence you could hand to the board, and they taught you something.
Where this scorecard sits in the process
Screen
Check targeting judgement and motivation.
25 minutes, structured, same questions for everyone.
Live exercise
See the conversation, not a description of it.
10 minutes' research, 2 minutes' rationale, 5-minute call, 3-line written follow-up.
Team conversation
Check coachability and honesty about weak spots.
30 minutes with the manager and one SDR they would sit beside.
How this maps to the Adroit Five Stage Screening Process
The same four dimensions sit inside the Adroit Five Stage Screening Process. We run the structured evidence conversation and the practical exercise before you meet anyone, so the shortlist you interview has already been scored against these dimensions rather than screened on CV keywords.
Questions that cannot be rehearsed
- Take me through how you chose who to contact last Tuesday.
- What is in your outreach now that was not there six months ago, and why did you change it?
- Tell me about a prospect who told you no and later took a meeting. What did you do differently?
- Where has automation made your outreach worse?
- What does a qualified meeting mean in your current role? Who wrote that definition?
- What is the hardest part of the job on a bad week, and what do you do about it?
The live exercise
- 01Name a real target account and give ten minutes with a laptop.
- 02Ask for two minutes on why they would approach it, who they would contact and with what opening.
- 03Run a five-minute first call with a colleague briefed to be busy and mildly sceptical.
- 04Ask them to write a three-line follow-up on the spot.
The scorecard
| Criterion | Weak (1–2) | Strong (3–4) |
|---|---|---|
| Targeting judgement | Works a list somebody handed them | Describes a filter and can defend it |
| Conversation quality | Pitches; talks over interruption | Asks, listens, summarises accurately |
| Resilience | Blames list or market | Names what they changed after a bad month |
| Tooling fluency | Cites volume increases | Cites time reclaimed and quality held |
How to run the debrief
Everybody submits scores before anybody speaks. Discuss only where scores differ by two or more. This takes fifteen minutes and removes most of the noise from group hiring decisions.
Common questions
- Is a role-play fair on nervous candidates?
- It is fairer than a conversation about selling, provided you brief them in advance and score behaviour rather than polish. Tell candidates the format before the day.
- How many people should score?
- Two or three. More adds time without adding signal, and makes it harder to hold anybody accountable for the decision.
Sources and review
- Written by
- Adroit Staffing
- Reviewed by
- Adroit Staffing editorial review
- First published
- Last reviewed
This page is practice guidance from our own Sales and GTM recruitment work. It makes no claims about current market data, so it cites no external figures.