Team Lead Interview Scorecard
ZYTHR Resources •
September 11, 2025
TL;DR
This scorecard helps interviewers evaluate candidates for a Team Lead role by focusing on leadership, delivery, and collaboration behaviors. It structures ratings into clear dimensions to guide consistent hiring decisions.
Who this scorecard is for
Designed for hiring managers, engineering leads, and recruiters assessing hands-on leaders who manage small technical teams. Use it in panel interviews to compare candidates against role-specific expectations.
Preview the Scorecard
See what the Team Lead Interview Scorecard looks like before you download it.
How to use and calibrate
- Pick the level (Junior, Mid, Senior, or Staff) and adjust anchor examples accordingly.
- Use the quick checklist during the call; fill the rubric within 30 minutes after.
- Or use ZYTHR to transcribe the interview and automatically fill in the scorecard live.
- Run monthly calibration with sample candidate answers to align expectations.
- Average across interviewers; avoid single-signal decisions.
Detailed rubric with anchor behaviors
Team Management
- 1–2: Does not set clear goals, misses 1:1s, and lets issues fester.
- 3: Defines team goals, holds regular 1:1s, and resolves common conflicts.
- 4: Aligns individual work to goals, proactively balances workload, prevents recurring problems.
- 5: Builds predictable team rhythms, consistently improves team throughput and morale metrics.
Technical Leadership
- 1–2: Lacks technical credibility or avoids technical decisions.
- 3: Contributes to design, reviews code, and guides technical choices.
- 4: Drives robust architecture, mentors on design trade-offs, prevents technical debt.
- 5: Defines scalable technical strategy, influences cross-team standards, drives measurable system improvements.
Execution & Delivery
- 1–2: Misses deadlines frequently and has poor task planning.
- 3: Delivers commitments reliably and clears routine blockers.
- 4: Breaks work into clear milestones, reduces cycle time, mitigates risks early.
- 5: Consistently delivers high-impact initiatives on schedule and improves delivery metrics.
Communication
- 1–2: Communication is unclear, reactive, or causes misunderstandings.
- 3: Communicates clearly to team and stakeholders, documents decisions.
- 4: Adapts communication to audience, summarizes trade-offs and impacts.
- 5: Aligns multiple stakeholders, negotiates priorities, and prevents misalignment proactively.
Coaching & Development
- 1–2: Does not provide feedback or support growth discussions.
- 3: Gives constructive feedback, supports skill development plans.
- 4: Creates development plans, identifies stretch opportunities, tracks progress.
- 5: Consistently grows direct reports into higher roles and increases team capability.
Decision Making & Prioritization
- 1–2: Makes ad-hoc decisions without evaluating impact or trade-offs.
- 3: Balances short-term needs and long-term goals in decisions.
- 4: Uses data and trade-off analysis to prioritize work and align team efforts.
- 5: Sets clear prioritization frameworks and consistently optimizes team impact.
Stakeholder Management
- 1–2: Avoids stakeholder interactions or escalates frequently without context.
- 3: Manages expectations and responds to stakeholder concerns reliably.
- 4: Anticipates stakeholder needs, negotiates trade-offs, secures alignment.
- 5: Builds trusted relationships across functions and influences roadmap decisions.
Scoring and weighting
Default weights (adjust per role):
| Dimension | Weight |
|---|---|
| Team Management | 20% |
| Technical Leadership | 18% |
| Execution & Delivery | 17% |
| Communication | 15% |
| Coaching & Development | 12% |
| Decision Making & Prioritization | 10% |
| Stakeholder Management | 8% |
Final score = weighted average across dimensions. Require at least two “4+” signals for Senior+ roles.
Complete Examples
Team Lead Scorecard — Great Candidate
| Dimension | Notes | Score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| Team Management | Improved team throughput and reduced churn over quarters | 5 |
| Technical Leadership | Proposed architecture that reduced incidents or improved performance | 5 |
| Execution & Delivery | Led a successful on-time release that enabled business outcomes | 5 |
| Communication | Resolved cross-team misalignment through concise communication | 5 |
| Coaching & Development | Promoted reports and established repeatable coaching practices | 5 |
| Decision Making & Prioritization | Introduced prioritization framework that increased delivered value | 5 |
| Stakeholder Management | Influenced roadmap change that benefited multiple teams | 5 |
Team Lead Scorecard — Good Candidate
| Dimension | Notes | Score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| Team Management | Regular 1:1s; team meets sprint commitments | 3 |
| Technical Leadership | Leads design discussions and performs solid reviews | 3 |
| Execution & Delivery | Consistently delivers planned features on time | 3 |
| Communication | Provides clear updates and documentation | 3 |
| Coaching & Development | Has coached peers and improved individual performance | 3 |
| Decision Making & Prioritization | Uses customer impact to prioritize backlog items | 3 |
| Stakeholder Management | Keeps stakeholders informed and aligned on scope | 3 |
Team Lead Scorecard — No-Fit Candidate
| Dimension | Notes | Score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|
| Team Management | No regular 1:1s; team deadlines missed repeatedly | 1 |
| Technical Leadership | Cannot justify design choices in interview | 1 |
| Execution & Delivery | Regularly misses planned releases | 1 |
| Communication | Fails to update stakeholders; creates confusion | 1 |
| Coaching & Development | No examples of coaching or development | 1 |
| Decision Making & Prioritization | Prioritizes tasks by personal preference, causing wasted work | 1 |
| Stakeholder Management | Creates repeated stakeholder escalations | 1 |
Recruiter FAQs about this scorecard
Q: Do scorecards actually reduce bias?
A: Yes—when you use the same questions, anchored rubrics, and require evidence-based notes.
Q: How many dimensions should we score?
A: Stick to 6–8 core dimensions. More than 10 dilutes signal.
Q: How do we calibrate interviewers?
A: Run monthly sessions with sample candidate answers and compare scores.
Q: How do we handle candidates who spike in one area but are weak elsewhere?
A: Use weighted average but define non-negotiables.
Q: How should we adapt this for Junior vs. Senior roles?
A: Keep dimensions the same but raise expectations for Senior+.
Q: Does this work for take-home or live coding?
A: Yes. Apply the same dimensions, but adjust scoring criteria for context.
Q: Where should results live?
A: Store structured scores and notes in your ATS or ZYTHR.
Q: What if interviewers disagree widely?
A: Require written evidence, reconcile in debrief, or add a follow-up interview.
Q: Can this template be reused for other roles?
A: Yes. Swap technical dimensions for role-specific ones, keep collaboration and communication.
Q: Can ZYTHR auto-populate the scorecard?
A: Yes. ZYTHR can transcribe interviews, tag signals, and live-populate the scorecard.
See Live Scorecards in Action
ZYTHR is not only a resume-screening took, it also automatically transcribes interviews and live-populates scorecards, giving your team a consistent view of every candidate in real time.