Executive Assistant interview scorecard template
A structured scorecard for interviewing a Executive Assistant: six weighted competencies, what a 1 and a 5 actually look like, and questions that surface evidence instead of opinions. Print it, or copy it into your ATS.
The Executive Assistant scorecard
| Competency | Weight | Score 1 — what it looks like | Score 5 — what it looks like |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calendar judgment on behalf of an executive Whether the candidate makes real trade-offs about the executive time, or forwards every conflict back for a decision. | 22% | Books whatever is requested in the first open slot and resolves conflicts by asking the executive which meeting matters more. | Describes the standing rule they were given, a conflict they resolved alone, and a recurring meeting they got removed from the calendar. |
| Discretion with confidential information How the candidate handles sensitive material they see daily — compensation, restructures, board matters — before anyone else knows. | 18% | Volunteers specifics about a former employer internal matters during the interview, without being asked for them. | Describes a situation only in structural terms, names what they would not repeat, and gives a case where they refused a colleague request. |
| Travel and logistics under change What happens when an itinerary breaks mid-trip, which determines whether the executive loses a day or arrives at the meeting. | 16% | Describes booking flights and hotels and has never had to rebuild an itinerary while the executive was already travelling. | Walks through a cancellation they solved in real time, what they rebooked first, and who they notified before being asked to. |
| Gatekeeping and stakeholder triage Whether the candidate can filter access without damaging relationships, which governs how much of the executive attention reaches the right people. | 16% | Grants access on a first-come basis, or blocks people rigidly without offering an alternative path to a resolution. | Describes how they triaged a request from a senior stakeholder they had to say no to, and what they offered instead of the meeting. |
| Anticipation and follow-through on commitments Whether the candidate tracks what the executive committed to and closes the loop, or waits to be asked for each item. | 16% | Describes their work as responding to requests and has no system for what was promised in a meeting they attended. | Names how they capture commitments, an item they chased to completion without being asked, and something they prepared before it was needed. |
| Written communication in the executive voice Whether messages sent on the executive behalf land correctly, since a badly worded note from that address creates a problem to repair. | 12% | Sends only scheduling messages and has never drafted anything the executive signed without rewriting it first. | Describes a message they drafted that went out largely unchanged, and how they learned the tone the executive would actually use. |
Weights sum to 100. Agree them before the first interview, not after — adjusting weights once you have scores is how a panel rationalises a favourite.
Questions that surface evidence
Each one asks for something that already happened, in enough detail to verify. Hypotheticals reward rehearsal, not track record.
- Describe a calendar conflict you resolved without asking. What was the standing rule you were working from, and how did the executive react?
- Tell me about a recurring meeting you got removed or shortened. What did you observe that led you to propose it, and what changed afterward?
- Walk me through a trip that fell apart mid-itinerary. What did you rebook first, who did you notify, and what did the executive have to skip?
- When did you have to tell a senior person no on the executive behalf? What did you offer instead, and how did that relationship end up?
- How did you track what your executive committed to in meetings? Give me an item you closed out that nobody asked you to follow up on.
Red flags
- Shares identifiable details about a former executive private or internal matters during the interview.
- Describes the role entirely as booking meetings, with no decision they ever made alone.
- Has never said no to anyone on the executive behalf, at any level.
- Speaks about the executive they supported with resentment or as an obstacle to work around.
How to use this scorecard
- Agree the weights with the panel before anyone interviews, and write them down.
- Every interviewer scores every competency independently, adding a note that quotes what the candidate actually said.
- Compare scores before discussing them. Discussing first anchors the panel on whoever speaks loudest.
Build a custom scorecard → · Boolean string to source a Executive Assistant →
Frequently asked questions
What should an executive assistant interview scorecard include?
Weighted competencies that reflect the judgment the role requires: calendar judgment on behalf of an executive, discretion with confidential information, travel and logistics under change, gatekeeping and stakeholder triage, anticipation and follow-through, and written communication in the executive voice. Weight calendar judgment highest, since that is the decision made most often. Anchors matter because organized and proactive describe every candidate on paper.
How do you test discretion in an interview?
Watch what the candidate volunteers about a former employer without being asked. Someone with strong discretion describes situations structurally and stops before identifiable detail; someone without it tells you exactly what a named executive was dealing with. That behavior is observable in the interview itself, which makes it more reliable than any question about confidentiality.
How do you compare executive assistants from different company sizes?
Compare the decisions they were trusted with, not the seniority of the person they supported. An assistant to a founder at a 40-person company may have made real calendar and access calls alone, while an assistant in a large corporate may have worked inside a tighter protocol. Score both on the same competencies with the evidence cited next to each rating so the difference in autonomy is visible.
When the stakes are a real hire, use evidence
These tools are quick heuristics. Verdict reads the CV against your job description and scores six dimensions with verbatim quotes as evidence — a hiring document you can defend.